SANKALPA Collaborative Commitment for Participatory and Gender Responsive Budgets
Baseline Study Report
Kathmandu
August, 2014 Table of contents
List of Abbreviations ...... 3 Executive Summary ...... 3 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Background...... 9 1.2 Context ...... 11 1.3 Objectives of the Baseline Study ...... 12 1.4 Scope of the Baseline Study ...... 12 1.5 Organization of the report ...... 12 Chapter 2 Study Methodology...... 13 2.1 Baseline Study Design ...... 13 2.2 Study Methods ...... 14 2.2.1 Quantitative Methods ...... 15 2.2.2 Qualitative Methods ...... 15 2.3 Study Procedure ...... 16 2.5 Study Approach ...... 17 2.6 Limitations of the Study ...... 18 Chapter 3: Key Study Findings ...... 19 3.1 Demographic Profile of Respondents ...... 19 3.2 Socio-Economic Profile of respondents ...... 20 3.3 Local level Planning and Budgeting Procedures ...... 25 3.4 Local Level Support Mechanism and Structures ...... 33 3.5 Monitoring and Accountability Arrangements ...... 37 Chapter 4: Synopsis & Way Forward ...... 41 4.1 Synopsis ...... 41 4.2 Key points of consideration ...... 44 4.3 Key Inferences ...... 46 4.4 Way Forward ...... 47 References ...... 49 Annex 1. Project Indicators and their baseline status ...... 50 Annex - 2. Population Details of project implementation VDCs ...... 52 Annex - 3. Two Representative Cases (of women who have participated in few activities) ...... 53 Annex - 4: Tools ...... 55
Page | 2 List of Abbreviations
CAC Citizen Awareness Center CBO Community Based Organization CBS Central Bureau of Statistics CFUG Community Forest User Group CSO Civil Society Organizations DDC District Development Committee FGD Focus Group Discussion GDP Gross Domestic Product GRB Gender Responsive Budgeting HFOMC Health Facility Operation and Management Committee IPC Integrated Planning Committee KAP Knowledge, Attitude and Practice KDC Kalika Development Center KII Key Informant Interview LGCDP Local Governance and Community Development Program LSGA Local Self Governance Act MOF Ministry of Finance MOFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development MSC Most Significant Change NGO Non-Governmental Organization PNGO Partner Non-Governmental Organization PTA Parent Teacher Association SAC Social Awareness Center SMC School Management Committee VDC Village Development Committee WCF Ward Citizen Forum
This baseline study report was prepared by a team of Nepal Evaluation and Assessment Team (NEAT) involving Jeevan Raj Lohani (Principal Researcher), Kalpana BC (Consultant), and Bidhya Dawadi. NEAT team who provided logistics support include: Bikash Acharya, Sunil Paudel, Ramila Bote, Sudha Tripathi, and Swechhya Lakoul.
CARE Nepal Team including Ms. Mahendra Laxmi Sharma, Mr. Rishi Bhattarai, and Mr. Mahandanda Paudel provided immense support in the study process. The program coordinators (supervisors) and social mobilizers (surveyors) from KDC, Pyuthan and SAC Nepal Surkhet deserve special acknowledgements for their efforts.
Page | 3 Executive Summary
Context CARE Nepal places special emphasis on involving poor, vulnerable and socially excluded groups such as women, dalit and marginalized groups in local development processes. ‘Sankalpa’ - collaborative commitment for participatory and gender responsive budget project is being implemented by CARE Nepal in Surkhet and Pyuthan districts of Mid-western region. Sankalpa will work with stakeholders of VDC level planning, budgeting processes to contribute to a more responsive public budgeting system that equally benefits the marginalized section, including women. The project intervenes towards strengthening both demand and supply side of local level planning process. By supporting Village Development Committees (VDC) the project aims at promoting transparency and participatory public budget allocation and expenditure of local bodies. Project actively engages marginalized community groups and civil societies in bottom up planning process to hold the government accountable. The project will work with planning units and processes at ward and VDC level. Sankalpa will work with Citizen Awareness Centers (CAC), Ward Citizen Forums (WCF) and Integrated Planning Committees (IPC) and promote active and meaningful representation and participation of women and marginalized section in these structure and processes of planning. The district and national level advocacy for gender responsive and inclusive budgets is also central to the project which will be initiated through empowerment and coalition building of CSOs. Sankalpa project’s overall goal is to achieve mandated political participation of women in local government and national parliament. In the process to begin the field level implementation of the project, a baseline study of the project was conducted during July of 2014.
Objectives and Study Scope The main objective of the baseline study was to assess , measure and document the existing status of the project implementation areas, target beneficiaries, and local/district institutions in terms of project objectives and performance indicators. The specific objectives were to:
build qualitative and quantitative base for the project implementation collect information on existing (pre project) scenario of target areas, local bodies/ institutions (VDC), CSOs, target groups, and other stakeholders. contribute and suggest in establishing an appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanism (with clear indicators and targets) for the project. suggest project implementation based on survey findings. enhance capacity of project officials/partners in collecting the baseline data, and carrying out future monitoring and evaluation activities.
Scope of Work and Methodology NEAT used Quasi-Experimental Design with Most Significant Change Components for the baseline study of Sankalpa project. Realizing the need to have scientific measurement of project impact, the baseline study attempts to adopt some principles of randomized evaluation designs.
The baseline study collected both quantitative as well as qualitative data. The quantitative tools included: KAP Survey, VDC Information Collection Form, CAC Information Form, and information collection from PNGOs. The KAP Survey was administered with randomly selected 768 households in control (from 12 VDCs where project will not be implemented) and 768 households in the intervention (intervention) areas (from 12 VDCs where project will be implemented during February, 2014- January, 2017). The data was collected from project implemented and non-implemented VDCs to enable better estimation of project impact through
Page | 4 counterfactuals based on baseline-endline comparisons.The qualitative tools included: focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and qualitative cohort for case studies. In addition, relevant literature was reviewed and brainstorming and consultations were conducted. The study was conducted primarily in 24 VDCs (12 control and 12 intervention) from two project implemented districts: Pyuthan, and Surkhet.
Socio-Economic Status On an average, the population of the project implementation VDCs is around 6,000 though it ranges from 3,000 to 17,000. Based on VDC records, the total population of 24 project implemented VDCs is 143,297. The population is evenly divided between Male and Female: the female population is slightly larger (51%) compared to male population (49%). The proportion of dalits in the population was found to be around 23 percent (including data from only 23 VDCs), and the proportion of janajati population was also around 29 percent. In aggregate, there were 29,861 households indicating to a family size of 5 individuals per family. Most of the households (around 95%) were Hindus, and majority of families (56%) were joint in nature.
The above 5 literacy rate for the project intervention location was estimated to be around 78 percent. The rate was higher for male (84%) compared to female (72%). The higher proportion of population was simple literate (38%) followed by those who have acquired primary level education (30%), and illiterate population (13%). The proportion of male members of the family engaged in income generation related activities was higher than female members. The primary income source for majority of households was found to be agriculture (43%) followed by foreign remittance (34%), job with monthly salary (9%), and daily wage (8%). The average monthly income for the project implementation locations was around Nepali Rupees 11,169 (equivalent to USD 124, 1USD = 90 NPR). Majority of the households (around 82%) had land in the ownership of the family, and among the households who had own land, the property was mostly in the ownership of male. The availability of communication facilities differed by types of equipments. The availability of television was thin compared to radio and mobile. The main source of drinking water for majority of the household was community tap (64% in intervention group and 67% in control group). In around 94 percent households of intervention VDCs (compared to 97% control), the households had safe and covered toilets.
Key Study Findings
The key study findings are as follows: The knowledge, attitude and practice served as barriers to meaningful participation of people especially women and disadvantaged groups. As highlighted in the key study findings, the general public did not have adequate knowledge and information about local governance procedure. Most of the households/respondents reported that they are unaware about VDC Council: around 78 percent in intervention (compared to 55 percent in control) reported that they are not aware about VDC Council. In many cases, they were not informed by the system about the events and need for their participation. The proportion of participants who reported to have been informed about VDC Council, social audit, and other events was less than 20 percent in all cases while the proportion of households informed about basti (settlement) and ward meeting was more than 40 percent.
Wherever informed, the tendency of households have been to send a family member or be present in the meeting or activities. Based on the discussions, when information is passed to family, in majority of times male tend to participate more than female. On an average, there were around 84 participants in the VDC Council (ranging
Page | 5 in between 23 to 186 people). In general, this figure indicates that the participation of general public in the VDC Council is very low: less than five percent of the total households in the village have participated in the VDC Council. Among the participants, around 25 percent (21 out of 84) were women, and around 14 percent (12 out of 84) were dalits. In an average, around 14 were local minority groups, four members were children, five participants were from CAC, and around 10 participants were from NGO/CBO.
The main source of information about VDC planning process was neighbors followed by VDC secretary. Interestingly, local women's group, local CBOs, and other form of networks available at the community level were not the preferred information source about governance related information. Once informed, the participation of the public, and their roles in the activities they participated was found to be at good state. In majority of cases, people who have participated have spoke and also believe that their concerns were listened. For example: Around half of the respondents/households (45% in intervention, 55% in control) were informed about meeting at the ward level. Out of every five households who were informed, at least a member from four participated in the event for both intervention and control. Out of those who participated in the meeting, around 62 percent in intervention VDCs (against 73% in control) spoke in the ward meeting. This could also be the result of the fact that so far the people who have been invited and who have participated as the active member of family/community.
Budget allocations are not gender responsive though VDCs have often managed to allocate separate budget on women's priorities. The budget allocated on women's priorities was seven percent (against expected 10%) while the budget for DAG and children was 9 percent each. The participation of women and DAGs in making decisions about other remaining budget was poor. They were often excluded from the process to make decisions about budget other than women's priorities. The budget formulation are done based on ad-hoc basis often influenced by local influential individuals of the community. In qualitative discussions, the stakeholders reported that the existing budget allocations do not follow community demand.
The support structures especially WCF and CAC have contributed to bring about improvement in people’s participation to some extent. Most of the respondents/ households had member in saving credit group (21%) followed by mother's group (19%), and Community Forest User Group (CFUG). Interestingly, around 9 percent respondents (6% for control) reported that there is someone from their family who is member of Citizen Awareness Center (CAC), and around Six percent (6% for control) reported to be member of Ward Citizen Forum (WCF).
CACs are operating/available but underutilized. Most of the respondents/households were completely unaware about CAC: around 76 percent respondents reported that they are unaware about CAC compared to around 81 percent in the control area. A few CAC members have received opportunity to take part in village level decision making: 73% CACs were invited in VDC Council, on an average two members from each CAC participate in VDC Council , and a member participated in the planning committee (IPC). However, CACs lacked technical human resource, did not meet regularly, did not discuss on the core topics of governance and participation, and were not adequately mobilized for advocacy and changes in governance.
Page | 6
The available accountability mechanisms are implemented primarily to meet mandatory requirements. More than 82 percent projects above NPR 200,000 have undergone public audit/hearing, and 23 out of 24 VDCs (except Tatopani VDC in Surkhet) have conducted and disseminated social audit during last year. However, very few of the beneficiaries are aware. Only half of those who are informed about the procedure attend the events, and even fewer could get chance to express their views. Around 91 percent respondents in the KAP survey were not informed about social audit. In practice, around 12 percent respondents reported that they are aware about income/expenditure of school while only four percent reported to know the same about health facility. In all these procedures, the meaningful participation of general public especially women and marginalized groups is very limited. The existing mechanisms are not friendly enough to have women participate and contribute in the planning and budgeting procedure.
CBO/NGOs are often invited to take part in the decision making procedure at the local level. Around 10 out of 85 participants in the VDC Council are the representatives of local NGO. The local groups/committees including CBO/NGOs have not worked as interface between citizen and source points. Only a few proportion of respondents (around 29%) reported that their group/network has helped them to raise their demand with local government. Similarly, they have not been useful to provide information to general public. Around 12 percent respondents reported that their group/network has provided information about local governance and management. The CBO/NGOs also suffer in terms of financial resources, human resource, and priorities.
Though VDCs are following mandatory procedures, they lack technical human resources and holistic understanding to implement the activities. All 24 VDCs reported that they are following all necessary steps within 14-step plan formulation procedure. Despite it, the activities are not implemented with adequate preparations, technical rigor, and participation of people from the local community. The involvement of political parties and their domination has contributed to allocation of budgets in traditional headings with limited consultation at the community level. There is a need to work with political parties rather than confronting with them.
Synopsis The existing status of local governance is weak. The mechanism has not been participatory, and gender responsive up to the desired level. Based on updated MC criteria for VDCs, only 2 out of 24 VDCs scored 19 out of 19 . In terms of meeting mandatory requirements, almost all VDCs have managed to do so by ensuring that they followed 14-step plan including ward meeting, social audit, and public audit/hearing related requirements. However, the activities are not implemented effectively, and completely lack gender responsiveness. The budget allocations are slowly catching up the required percentage allocations though the exact allocations, and their effectiveness is in question. The VDC level budget distribution does not follow gender responsive budgeting framework as the allocations are done on ad-hoc basis without considering any data/evidence. There is no mechanism to evaluate the performance and impact of local level investments.
Inferences Though the typical purpose of the baseline study was not to suggest program on its strategies, some points have been highlighted for discussions. Based on the synopsis and key points for
Page | 7 considerations, the key inferences drawn from baseline study that can be utilized for program intervention was as follows:
Make adequate information available to general public, especially women on local governance structures and activities, procedure, and the ways of involvement. Identify suitable mechanism to delivery information to individuals. It is also suggested to find out possible ways to deliver the information at the individual level, and encourage all individuals from a family to participate if they are available. Some options could be strengthening of CAC, or passing information through neighbors in a sequential order. Need to build capacity of local groups/CBOs/NGOs in a way that they serve as information points, and interface between citizen and government, and also prepare them adequately to focus on monitoring and evaluating the activities of the local government bodies. Work with VDCs, service providers and political parties to build their capacity and willingness to establish accountable and transparent governance mechanism. Re-energize and structure CAC considering the project targets. The project could focus in increasing number of CACs, regularizing their meetings, technical capacity building of facilitators to organize effective discussions in priority topics, and encouraging CACs to initiate and run advocacy initiatives. Initiate advanced level activities in sequential procedure. Some practices and structures planned to be introduced within the project (such as gender audit, community score board etc) will be new to the community, and are of advanced level.
Way Forward The following are the suggested way forward:
Initiate adjustment in program strategies based on baseline study findings to make interventions evidence based, relevant and result oriented. Make revisions in targets for performance indicators considering that some targets are already achieved, and some targets are beyond the project's scope within the project period. Prepare and establish standard monitoring framework based on the baseline study approach and findings. There is a need to establish a monitoring mechanism to track the progress in key performance indicators over the period by assigning information sources and information collection mechanism. Build capacity of PNGOs, and project officials to establish and utilize strong monitoring and evaluation mechanism in line with the start given by baseline study. CARE Nepal, as a chief implementing agency, should also look to utilize the baseline findings adequately in setting up monitoring and evaluation mechanism. The study suggests to place Mid-Term Review (MTR) to follow up with baseline towards middle of the project implementation.
Page | 8
Chapter 1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the report with the national background relating to the project, context of the project implementation, and study objectives along with study scope.
1.1 Background
Nepal is passing through unique stage of political transformation after observing various political upheavals during the last decade. During the last decade, the country oversaw peaceful end of the 12-year long internal conflict, end of monarchy, declaration of Interim Constitution, election of constituent assembly, and declaration of republican state. The country is currently going through the constitution drafting process (through constituent assembly) that could help country to resolve the agendas of political transformation and guide the country towards more stable governance and development structure. This is the second attempt of formulating constitution through constituent assembly since the first attempt failed to give any conclusive result.
The ongoing political transformation and unrest had effect on the national economy. The performance of national economy is weak. The real GDP of Nepal is 1925 Billion Nepali Rupees (Around 20 Billion US Dollars) at Producer's Current Price (MOF, 2014a). An economic growth of 5.2 percent is expected in the FY 2013/14, the highest in the last six years (MOF, 2014b). The revised total expenditure of the current Fiscal Year (2013/14) is estimated to be Rs. 449.85 billion against the allocation of Rs. 517.24 billion (MOF, 2014b). The economy depends largely on agriculture, and foreign remittance, two major employment sectors. According to NLSS, 2010 figures, more than half of the households in Nepal receive foreign remittance of one or another nature (CBS, 2011).
The poverty incidence has decreased in terms of the increase in per capita income, and reduction in number of people living below the poverty line. Based on 2011 estimates by National Living Standard Survey, the population living below poverty line is around 25 percent (CBS, 2011). The per capita income (based on GDP estimates) is expected to remain around USD 703 during FY 2013/2014 which observed increment compared to 293 USD during 2003/2004 (MOF, 2014a).
While stagnant economic progress and staggering political transformation has been features of Nepal, the results in social sector progress have left some space for encouragement, though the country is already off-track in reach most of the Millennium Development Goals. Nepal is regarded as a country which made rapid progress in school enrollment rates, literacy rates, and maternal and child health outcome indicators. Though the situation has improved for the very poor condition the country had few decades earlier, the current status is also well below the requirements/standards set at the international level.
For administrative purpose, Nepal is politically divided in to 5 development regions, 14 zones, and 75 districts. The lowest unit of political division with administrative function is Village Development Committee (VDC). There are more than 3000 VDCs, and more than 100 Municipalities. The key landmark in terms of local governance in Nepal has been formulation of Local Self Governance Act (LSGA), 1999 which assigned the local government unit for various
Page | 9 coordination and leadership roles, and also provided authorities to generate and utilized local revenue. The act also illuminated ways for direct unconditional/conditional grants to the VDCs through MOFALD (then called Ministry of Local Development). The act, however, could not get into full fledged implementation particularly because the local elections have not been organized ever since the act got rolled out. Local Governance and Community Development Program (LGCDP), a sector wide program funded through various donors and implemented by MOFALD, has contributed to reactivate the local governance efforts in the spirit of LSGA. In absence of local elected bodies, the existing planning and budgeting procedures are strengthened through enforcement of standard provisions, creation of citizen platform such as Ward Citizen Forum and Integrated Planning Committee, and institutionalization of VDC Council with wider participation of stakeholders. The mechanisms though initiated have not been adequately effective and requires huge boost up from the civil society organizations in facilitating the procedure and encouraging citizens to participate.
Along with governance efforts, the participation of women and disadvantaged groups has always been demanded with an aim to have resources distributed considering the needs and aspirations of the marginalized groups. Gender Responsive Budgeting (GRB) has been an agenda discussed and brought under practice to some extent from the center to local level. In recent years, efforts have been made within Ministry of Finance to allocate government expenditure and resources making them gender responsive.
GRB was formally introduced in Nepal in the fiscal year 2007/2008, under the leadership of the Ministry of Finance. In recent years, the Ministry has put a great emphasis on the importance of making deliberate efforts to translate policies aimed at addressing gender inequalities into targeted and funded programs and to track public expenditures from a gender perspective (Banskota, 2010).
The Finance Ministry uses five indicators to analyze budget allocations from a gender perspective. All five indicators (listed below) are assigned an equal weight of 20% each: Women's capacity development, Women's participation in programme formulation and implementation, Benefit incidence of public expenditures on women, Support to women's employment and income generation, Positive impact on women's time use and care work.
In compliance with this system, sectoral ministries are required to categorize their programmes budgets according to the extent to which they support gender equality. The three prescribed categories are: Directly responsive indicates more than 50% of the allocation directly benefiting women Indirectly responsive indicates 20-50% Neutral indicates less than 20% benefiting women.
This budget categorization has facilitated the establishment of a monitoring system that allows greater institutional accountability for implementing gender mainstreaming, the strengthening of result oriented management and the continued use of gender budget analysis to inform planning and programming (Banskota, 2011). Ministry of Finance (MOF) keeps track of the gender responsive budgeting, and the data indicates that the share of directly supportive budget has increased over the years though in small proportion. In 2013/14, the share of directly supportive budget was around 22 percent, indirectly supportive was around 44 percent, and neutral was around 34 percent.
Page | 10
Table 1. Gender Responsive Budgets in Nepal (2007-2014)
No. Fiscal Year Directly Supportive(in Indirectly Supportive(in Neutral(in billions billions rupees) billions rupees) rupees) 1 2007/08 19.09(11.30%) 56.03(33.16%) 93.87(55.54%) 2 2008/09 32.91(13.94%) 83.58(35.41%) 119.53(50.64%) 3 2009/10 49.46(17.30%) 104.16(36.43%) 132.32(46.27%) 4 2010/11 60.61 (17.94) 112.65 (36.30) 154.64 (45.76) 5 2011/12 73.33 (19.05) 176.21 (45.78) 135.35 (35.17) 6 2012/13 87.07 (21.51) 178.63 (44.13) 139.11 (34.36) 7 2013/14 112.5 (21.75) 227.3 (43.94) 177.4 (34.31) Source: MOF, www.mof.gov.np, August 14, 2014
While the efforts at the center to categorize the budget by gender responsive, supportive or neutral is under practice, similar practices are sought for the local level planning and budgeting at the DDC and VDC levels. There are efforts necessary at the ground level to strengthen the planning and budgeting procedure to make it gender responsive through capacity building of local governance mechanisms, and community mobilization.
1.2 Context
CARE Nepal places special emphasis on involving poor, vulnerable and socially excluded groups such as women, dalit and marginalized groups in local development processes. ‘Sankalpa’ - collaborative commitment for participatory and gender responsive budget project is being implemented by CARE Nepal in Surkhet and Pyuthan districts of Mid-western region. Sankalpa will work with stakeholders of VDC level planning, budgeting processes to contribute to a more responsive public budgeting system that equally benefits the marginalized section, including women. The project intervenes towards strengthening both demand and supply side of local level planning process. By supporting Village Development Committees (VDC) project aims at promoting transparency and participatory public budget allocation and expenditure of local bodies. Project actively engages marginalized community groups and civil societies in bottom up planning process to hold the government accountable. The project will work with planning units and processes at ward and VDC level. Sankalpa will work with Citizen Awareness Centers (CAC), Ward Citizen Forums (WCF) and Integrated Planning Committees (IPC) and promote active and meaningful representation and participation of women and marginalized section in these structure and processes of planning.
The district and national level advocacy for gender responsive and inclusive budgets is also central to the project which will be initiated through empowerment and coalition building of CSOs. Sankalpa’s project’s overall goal is to achieve mandated political participation of women in local government and national parliament.
Overall objective of the project To contribute to a transparent and participatory public budget allocation and expenditure in Nepal that equally benefits marginalized groups, particularly women. Specifically, the project aims to achieve the following objectives. To support local governments in 24 Village Development Committees (VDC) in Pyuthan and Surkhet districts in implementing sustainable participatory and gender responsive financial management systems.
Page | 11 To coordinate and strengthen the engagement of civil society organization in holding the government accountable for a transparent, efficient and gender responsive use of public finances at VDC, district and national level.
1.3 Objectives of the Baseline Study
The main objective of the baseline study was to assess, measure and document the existing status of the project implementation areas, target beneficiaries, and local/district institutions in terms of project objectives and performance indicators.
In addition, the baseline survey had following objectives:
To build qualitative and quantitative base for the project implementation To collect information on existing (pre project) scenario of target areas, local bodies/ institutions (VDC), CSOs, target groups, and other stakeholders. To contribute and suggest in establishing a suitable monitoring and evaluation mechanism (with clear indicators and targets) for the project. To suggest project implementation based on survey findings. To enhance capacity of project officials/partners in collecting the baseline data, and carrying out future monitoring and evaluation activities.
The findings of this baseline study will provide an overview of the program areas, institutions and major stakeholders for the project implementation team. The findings of the baseline study will help to enhance the understanding of the program implementation itself and serve as an instrumental document in program planning.
1.4 Scope of the Baseline Study
The scope of the study is Surkhet and Pyuthan districts in mid-western development region. The baseline study covered 24 VDCs of two districts where the project is under implementation.
1.5 Organization of the report
This baseline report is organized in four chapters. Chapter one builds the rationale and context for the study and introduces the purpose of the baseline. Chapter two describes the study methodology used in the baseline. This chapter details the baseline design, methods and procedure of the study. Chapter three presents the key findings of the study. It includes the general profile of the areas under study and describes the present status of the major and crucial project indicators. Chapter four summarizes findings of the study and suggests the way forward for the project. It generates some inferences and puts forward major points for consideration of the project team.
Page | 12 Chapter 2 Study Methodology
This chapter summarizes the baseline study methodology including baseline study design, study methodologies, tools and study procedure.
2.1 Baseline Study Design
A Quasi-Experimental Design with Most Significant Change Components was used for the baseline study of ‘Sankalpa’ project. Realizing the need to have scientific measurement of project impact, the baseline study attempts to adopt some principles of randomized evaluation designs. As the project locations are selected prior to the baseline; randomized evaluation designs was replaced with quasi experimental designs. The main purpose of quasi experimental design is to allow calculation of double differences to measure the actual impact of the project.
What is a quasi- experimental design? It is an experimental design that does not meet all requirements necessary to be an experimental design which requires controlling influences of extraneous variables. It is an evaluation design where the interventions implemented individuals/areas are selected purposively (without any form of random assignment). In the context of this project, where project implementation areas were purposively selected accounting needs assessment and other criteria, quasi experimental designs allow measurement of project impact by calculating double differences. Double difference refers to the difference between status of project implemented and non-implemented areas before and after the implementation of a project.
A chart below provides graphical illustration of how quasi-experimental design will work in evaluating the project.
Quasi Experimental Design (Double Differences)
Improvement Change in Control (unknown factors) = Change in Intervention – Change in Change in Intervention (known and unknown factors) Control
Page | 13 In quasi experimental design, there are two different comparison groups which are not necessarily equivalent but taken to allow comparison through creation of 'counterfactuals'. The zone of influence was adjudged to be VDC.
Intervention Intervention group, also known as ‘intervention group’, refers to an group area or population who is directly intervened by a project. For this baseline study, 768 women/households from 12 project VDCs from Surkhet and Pyuthan for Sankalpa project was population for 'intervention group'. Control group Control group, or ‘comparison group’, refers to an area or population who does not receive direct or indirect benefit from the project intervention. Such groups are selected only for comparison and assessment purpose. For this baseline study, individuals/household VDCs which do not receive any intervention were considered control group.
Most Significant Change (MSC) Technique: MSC technique is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation. It is participatory because many project stakeholders are involved both in deciding the change to be recorded and in analyzing the data. Essentially, the process involves the collection of significant change (SC) stories emanating from the field level, and the systematic selection of the most significant of these stories by panels of designated stakeholders or staff1. The cohort tracking for MSC is expected to contribute in the monitoring as well as evaluation. In this study, MSC was applied in a qualitative cohort, and its application in baseline will concentrate on documentation of case studies as described in detail in upcoming sections.
2.2 Study Methods
The baseline study will collect both quantitative as well as qualitative data. The quantitative tools will be utilized primarily to estimate the status of the counterfactuals, and the qualitative tools are expected to contribute in explaining the quantitative findings. The chart below illustrates key methods/tools by category.
Chart 1. Study Tools
Quantitative Qualitative Others •KAP Survey •Focus Group Discussions •Literature Review •VDC Information •Key Informant Interviews •Brainstorming & Collection Form •Qualitative Cohort for Consultation •Institutional Assessment Case Studies Form
1 Rick Davies and Jessica Dart. The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A guide to its use.
Page | 14 2.2.1 Quantitative Methods
Method 1: KAP Survey with target groups A knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) survey was conducted with households in project areas. Level of awareness, knowledge and understanding of planning and budgeting, practices of democratic norms in village level was assessed through the KAP survey. KAP survey was administered with selected samples in intervention and control VDCs of Surkhet and Pyuthan.
Table 2: Sample details Design Experimental Design Sample size 1536 (768 for control and 768 for intervention). The sample size was calculated by considering the population of 24,400 and confidence interval of 3.5. The exact number was 760 which was rounded to 768. Zone of Influence VDC was considered as zone of influence. The intervention VDCs were already identified. The control VDCs were identified through propensity score matching for each intervention VDC using population size, composition of the population, literacy rate, NER etc. Sampling distribution Control: 2 district * 6 VDC * 2 Wards * 2 clusters * 16 HHs Intervention: 2 district * 6 VDC * 2 Wards * 2 clusters * 16 HHs Sample frame The sample frame was prepared at the field level. The sample frame of wards, clusters and households will be prepared, and sampling process were applied. Sampling procedure The sampling design was cluster based random sampling. The wards and clusters were identified randomly. From within clusters, stratified random sampling was applied using transect walk.
Method 2: Information Collection Form - VDC Since most of the project objectives and targets are related to the performance of local government and other local service providers, detailed information was collected from both control and intervention VDCs to get value of various project performance indicators. The information form was collected from all 24 project implemented (intervention) VDCs from two districts.
Method 3: NGO Information Collection In addition to information collection from other sources, information was also collected from the NGO which is implementing the project about organizational practices, participation and representation of target groups, organizational understanding and decision making practices and capacity assessment. For the baseline study of Sankalpa, only project implementing partners of CARE were included.
Method 4: CAC Information Form One of the key information source of baseline study was Citizen Awareness Cetner (CAC). A CAC information form was developed and filled in for each CACs available in a sample of project implemented VDCs.
2.2.2 Qualitative Methods
Method - 1: Focus Group Discussions Focus groups discussion (FGD) with homogenous groups –women, marginalized and poor was used for qualitative data and in-depth information. FGD data enables the research to delve into the meaning of information derived through quantitative tools. FGDs was conducted based on
Page | 15 specific checklists supplemented by few participatory tools. FGDs was be conducted with four groups: (i) women's group (2 FGDs in aggregate), (ii) men's group (2 FGDs in aggregate), and (iii) CAC members (4 FGDs with two groups), and (iv) WCF members (2 FGDs with two groups).
Method - 2: Key Informant Interview (KII) with stakeholders at district/ VDC level The indirect target groups and duty bearers at district level and VDC level were administered Key Informant Interviews (KII). The key informants for this baseline study include VDC officials, CBO network at the district. The number of KII conducted in this study was 1 DDC Official, 4 VDC Secretary, 2 representatives of CSOs, 2 representatives of CAC, 2 representative of WCF and other relevant individuals.
Method - 3: Qualitative Cohort The qualitative cohorts were set up for MSC methodology. The cohort included 12 Individuals (of different background) in the project implemented VDCs. The cohorts were tracked in households where KAP survey was administered.
Triangulations The data collected from all different sources were triangulated with each other for the purpose of analysis. The triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data builds the baseline analysis.
2.3 Study Procedure
This baseline study followed a set of standard research procedures:
1. Brainstorming and consultation At the beginning of the baseline study design process, a round of brainstorming and consultation meetings were organized with CARE which contributed to plot and refine further on the research design proposed initially by the concept paper.
2. Review of Literature Various available literatures on baseline study design, national and governmental reports on project subject, reports from INGOs and NGOs, domestic and international publications, newspapers and other sources were reviewed by the research team as part of desk study.
3. Finalization research method and tools Following the literature review and consultation, NEAT finalized the research design. Suitable research methods and tools were identified based on the research design, coverage of the project, and availability of resources.
4. Training to PNGO officials and surveyors Sankalpa project team, partner NGO officials and surveyors were a crucial part of this baseline study. Thus, following the finalization of research design and development of methodology/tools, a 2 day long orientation training was held for Program Officers and surveyors from PNGO in Surkhet and Pyuthan. The training included discussions on topics such as baseline as a part of monitoring and evaluation system, project’s baseline design, study methods, tools, and strategies for date collection (sampling, ethics, and procedures) and data compilation.
Page | 16
5. Pre-testing The study tools (both qualitative and quantitative) were pre tested on field after the orientation training sessions in a community of Sari VDC, Pyuthan involving the trainees who participated in the capacity building training program. This helped in identifying shortcomings in the tools and assisted the researchers in addressing the problems.
6. Identification of sample sites Following the pre-testing the sample VDCs and wards were selected randomly with participation of all district level team members. The sample intervention VDCs were identified initially along with the wards to collect data in those VDCs. The control VDCs were identified to match with the characteristics of intervention VDCs, and the selection of wards in those VDCs followed randomization procedure similar to the intervention.
Table 3. Sample VDCs Surkhet Pyuthan Intervention VDC Aagrigaun, Satakhani, Ligha, Damri, Bangemarod, Hariharpur, Ghatgaun, Khaira, Tiram, Barjibang Bidhyapur, Bijaura Control VDC Ghoreta, Kalyan, Kunathari, Khabang, Phopli, Bandikot, Salkot, Babiyachaur, Betan Ramdi, Nayagaun, Belbas
7. Finalization of tools Based on the observations from pre-testing and feedback from training sessions, the tools were reviewed, revised and edited and finalized. The finalized tools were then forwarded over to respective PNGOs for the field work and data collection.
8. Administration of tools and data collection The tools were administered in the selected intervention and control VDCs following the pre-testing and finalization. In addition to the PNGO surveyors, a central team of researchers from NEAT were involved in qualitative data collection. The data collected by PNGOs was coded, compiled and sent to NEAT after data collection.
9. Data Analysis NEAT entered the survey forms and other information in statistical software. SPSS was used to analyze the quantitative data. Qualitative data was compiled based on field notes and transcripts. Both forms of data were analyzed and triangulated.
2.5 Study Approach
Human subject research ethics NEAT ensures strict adherence to human subject research ethics related to anonymity, confidentiality, and informed consent in any form of research it conducts. In this baseline study, NEAT ensured sensitivity in its execution of research methods. The data collection was done through informed prior consent by using standard consent form and arrangements have been made to protect study participant’s rights. The field research data collection enumerators were oriented thoroughly on adhering to human subject research ethics.
Participation of partners
Page | 17 The baseline study was conducted by mobilizing central team of experts of NEAT with support from Care central office, Sankalpa project team, and partner NGOs at Surkhet and Pyuthan. The partner NGOs were directly involved in data collection with capacity enhancement support from NEAT. An orientation was held with partner NGOs to train them about monitoring and evaluation, baseline data collection process, ethical requirements, and compilation of data.
2.6 Limitations of the Study
The baseline study was conducted within a short period of time with limited resources. The quasi-experimental design was placed in a situation where the program VDCs were identified prior to the baseline leading to non-random distribution of control and intervention VDCs. In this study, quasi experimental design was used as an alternative to experimental design. As the project areas were already identified and finalized, there was no room for complete randomization. However, out of the 24 project VDCs, 12 were chosen randomly as intervention VDCs, and another 12 VDCs were selected as control sites (based on some comparative parameters identified and agreed by PNGOs). The quasi-experimental design was adjusted, and the sample size was calculated without estimating the exact effect size. The idea is to allow measurement of project impacts in terms of indicative differences at the baseline and endline in control as well as intervention sites. Due to cost and logistic limitations, only 12 VDCs out of 24 were chosen, and sampling framework was adjusted accordingly.
Page | 18 Chapter 3 Key Study Findings
This chapter presents key baseline study findings. It provided an overall demographic and socio-economic profile of the area under study and follows up with objective wise findings.
3.1 Demographic Profile of Respondents
Actual sample size The study collected data from a sample of 1543 households from 24 VDCs in Pyuthan and Surkhet.
Population in project VDCs On an average, the population of the project implementation VDCs is around 6,000 though it ranges from 3,000 to 17,000. Based on VDC records, the total population in all 24 project implemented VDCs is 143,297. The proportion of male and female in the population is even: the female population is slightly larger (51%) compared to male population (49%).
The proportion of dalits in the population was found to be around 23 percent (Note: data from only 23 VDCs), and the proportion of janajati population was also around 29 percent. In aggregate, there were 29,861 households indicating to a family size of 5 individuals per family.
Table 3. Brief population details
Number % / Average Total Population (estimated) 143,297 Female Population 72,701 50.73 Male Population 70,596 49.27 Dalit Population 31,237 23.09 Janajati Population 39,160 28.94 Number of households 29,861 5
Sex of the respondents Majority of study respondents were female: three among every four respondents were female. In aggregate, almost equal proportion in control and intervention, around 37 percent of the respondents were male, and around 63 percent were female.
Caste The distribution of caste in the total sample indicates that the total 25 percent households covered within the study were dalits, 33 percent were janajatis, and 42 percent were from other castes. The proportion slightly differed for control and intervention: higher proportion of dalits available in intervention sample (31%) compared to control (18%). This could be due to the fact that the communities with higher proportion of dalits were taken for project interventions.
Table 4. Caste of the respondents Dalits Janajati Others Control 18.0% 31.1% 50.8% Intervention 31.2% 34.9% 33.9% Pyuthan 19.4% 40.4% 40.2% Surkhet 30.7% 26.1% 43.2% Aggregate 25.1% 33.1% 41.8%
Page | 19 Religion In terms of religion, for majority of respondents followed hinduism. Around 96 percent households reported that they follow Hinduism followed by a little over three percent following Buddhism, and remaining one percent following other religions.
Table 5. Religions Hindu Buddhist Islam Christian Control 96.9% 2.8% .3% .0% 100.0% Intervention 94.8% 4.0% .0% 1.2% 100.0% Aggregate 95.8% 3.4% .1% .7% 100.0%
Family Type Among the sample households, majority of the households had family of joint nature. In aggregate, the proportion of joint family was 56 percent compared to 44 percent nuclear family. There was no significant difference between control and intervention households in terms of the proportion of nuclear and joint families.
Table 6. Family Type Single Joint Control 42.7% 57.3% Intervention 44.4% 55.6% Aggregate 43.6% 56.4%
Family Size The average family size was found to be 6 members per family with nearly equal number of male and female members. In aggregate, the proportion of female members in the sample families was 49 percent though there is no significant difference in the average number of male and average number of female in the family2. The average family size for the sample households was higher than the national average (5 members per family).
Table 7. Family Size VDC Type No. of male members in family No. of female members in family Control 3.10 2.99 Intervention 3.22 3.11 Total 3.17 3.05
3.2 Socio-Economic Profile of respondents
Literacy The above 5 literacy rate for the project intervention location was estimated to be around 78 percent. The rate was higher for male (84%) compared to female (72%). The literacy rate for control locations (87%) was higher than intervention locations.
Education level For population above 5 years old, the distribution of individuals by educational attainment followed similar pattern for control and intervention locations. The higher proportion of population was simple literate followed by those who have acquired primary level education,
2 While the overall VDC population data indicate that there are more male in the family than female. The sample proportion indicate that the number of male and female was almost same (slightly higher for male 3.17 compared to female 3.05). There was slight difference in sex ratio of the sample and population.
Page | 20 and illiterate population. The proportion of population diminishes towards higher education with only around 1-2 percent being able to reach that level.
Table 8. Educational Attainment (Intervention vs. Control) Illiterate % Simple Completed Completed Completed Studied Literate primary level School Higher Higher Education Secondary Education Intervention 1040 22.31 1574 33.77 970 20.81 595 12.77 402 8.62 80 1.72 Control 497 12.54 1491 37.63 1197 30.21 467 11.79 254 6.41 56 1.41
The chart below shows the distribution of population by educational attainment in intervention.
Chart 2. Educational Attainment Distribution by Levels (Intervention)
Completed Higher Studied Higher Secondary Education 8% 2% Completed School Illiterate Education 22% 13%
Completed primary level 21% Simple Literate 34%
There was some difference in educational attainment by sex. The difference in number of male and female by education levels illustrates unique trend In intervention locations, the proportion of female was higher for illiterate and simple literate category, then the proportion of male was higher for primary level and school level education, and again, the proportion of female was higher for higher secondary and higher education.
Chart 3. Educational Attainment Distribution by Levels (Intervention Vs. Control) 900 844 800 730 665 700 614 600 500 448 375 400 356 284 300 200 147 118 100 47 33 0 Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Illiterate Simple Literate Completed Completed Completed Higher Studied Higher primary level School Education Secondary Education
Page | 21 The distribution pattern was similar for control and intervention groups. The table below presents the educational attainment levels for Male and Female by control and intervention locations.
Table 9. Distribution of education attainment levels (Male vs. Female) VDC Type No. of No. of simple No. of No. completing No. completing No. of with illiterate literate completing school higher higher primary level education secondary education female male female male female male female male female male female male Control 328 169 791 700 539 658 129 338 137 117 26 30 Intervention 665 375 844 730 356 614 147 448 284 118 47 33 Total 993 544 1635 1430 895 1272 276 786 421 235 73 63
Male and Female engaged in Income The proportion of male members of the family engaged in income generation related activities was higher than female members. Out of the total male members (of all age groups), around 41 percent were engaged in income generation. The proportion of female engaged in income generation was 17 percent for intervention (slightly higher compared to 12 percent in control).
Table 10. Engagement in income generating activities
No. of male No. of male % of male No. of female No. of female % of female members in involved in involved members in involved in involved in Sample income in income sample income income Households generation generation households generation generation Control 2207 908 41.14 2122 256 12.06 Intervention 2646 1093 41.30 2559 503 19.65 Total 4853 2001 41.23 4681 759 16.21
Income source The family income depended largely on agriculture and foreign remittance. The primary income source for majority of households was found to be agriculture (43%) followed by foreign remittance (34%), job with monthly salary (9%), and daily wage (8%).
Chart 4. Distribution of primary source of income (Intervention Sample)
Others 1%
Foreign remittance Agriculture (Farm) 34% 43%
Daily Wage 6% Agriculture Pension (Livestock) 2% Job with monthly 2% non-farm buisness salary 3% 9%
Page | 22 The proportion of households with different primary source of income was not substantially different for control and intervention households. The primary income sources distributed in even proportion between control and intervention sites.
Table 11: Primary Source of Income Agricultur Agriculture non-farm Job with Pensio Daily Foreign Other e (Farm) (Livestock) business monthly salary n Wage remittance s Control 33.9% 4.4% 5.3% 8.7% 1.9% 7.5% 37.2% 1.1% Intervention 43.0% 1.7% 3.2% 8.6% 2.0% 6.4% 34.2% .9% Aggregate 38.8% 3.0% 4.2% 8.7% 1.9% 6.9% 35.6% 1.0%
Income The average monthly income for the project implementation locations was around Nepali Rupees 11,169 (equivalent to USD 124, 1USD = 90 NPR). The income slightly differed for control and intervention locations indicating that the average household income was a bit higher for control largely because few households in control had income as high as 250,000. The income had huge dispersion, and was particularly higher for control households. The income range did not differ much by districts: the average monthly income for Pyuthan was around NPR 12,040 while it was 13,372 for Surkhet district
Table 12. Average estimated monthly income VDC Type Mean N Std. Deviation Control 14478.55 705 16964.763 Intervention 11168.94 808 10069.053 Pyuthan 12040.27 750 14462.585 Surkhet 13372.62 764 13114.257 Total 12711.09 1513 13814.622
Land Ownership Majority of the households (around 82%) had land owned of the family. Among the households which had own land, the property was mostly in the ownership of male. Around 82 percent households which had land ownership reported that the property is registered in the name of male, around 13 percent had it in the ownership of female, and around five percent had it in the joint ownership. The proportion was similar for control and intervention.
Table 13. Land Ownership
Is there land in the If Yes, who has the ownership? ownership of your family? Yes No Male Female Both Control 82.6% 17.4% 81.1% 12.0% 6.9% Intervention 82.0% 18.0% 82.6% 12.9% 4.5% Aggregate 82.3% 17.7% 81.9% 12.5% 5.6%
Availability of Communication Facilities The availability of communication facilities differed by types of equipments. The availability of television was thin compared to radio and mobile. In project intervention locations, only around 10 percent households (29% in control) had television in their house, around 42 percent had radio (46% in control), and around 89 percent had mobile phones (92% in control). Mobile phone was found to be widely available with 9 in every 10 households had at least one mobile phone with them. The use of communication equipment was reported to be high: for television
Page | 23 and radio, around 90 percent households who had the equipments utilized it, and for mobile, the utilization rate was as high as 98 percent for intervention locations.
Table 14. Availability and use of communication facilities
Television Radio Mobile Available In use Available In use Available In use Control 29.2 97.1 46.0 93.3 91.7 99.1 Intervention 10.2 90.5 41.5 89.1 88.9 97.8
Drinking Water The main source of drinking water for majority of the household was community tap (64% for intervention and 67% for control). In aggregate around 82 percent households in project intervention areas had safe drinking water source while there were still few proportion of households who had to depend on river/pond and open well for their drinking water.
Chart 5. Source of drinking water
river or pond Others Private tap 7% 1% 5%
Tube well or hand pump spring water 0% 13% Open well 6%
Covered well Community tap 3% 65%
Though the distribution pattern of population by source of drinking water does not differ much between control and intervention areas, some slight differences can be observed. There are slightly more people with private tap and spring water source in control areas while there are more households depending on open well and river/pond in intervention areas.
Table 15. Sources of drinking water
Privat Commu Covere Open Tube well or spring river or Other e tap nity tap d well well hand pump water pond s Control 12.0% 66.9% .4% .7% .6% 17.7% 1.1% .6% Intervention 4.8% 64.5% 3.1% 6.5% .1% 12.6% 7.1% 1.3% Aggregate 8.1% 65.6% 1.8% 3.8% .3% 15.0% 4.3% 1.0%
Covered toilet In most of the households, the toilets were covered. In around 94 percent households of intervention VDCs (compared to 97% in control), the households had safe and covered toilets. The proportion does not differ much by districts: 97 percent households in Surkhet and 94 percent households in Pyuthan had covered toilet.
Page | 24
3.3 Local level Planning and Budgeting Procedures
Awareness on VDC Council and budget allocations VDC Council is one of the key events at the VDC level where budget allocations are given final shape after wider consultation with the public and beneficiaries. Most of the households/respondents reported that they are unaware about VDC Council: around 78 percent in intervention (compared to 55 percent in control) reported that they are not aware about VDC Council. There are more proportion of respondents who were unaware about budget allocation procedure than VDC Council: around 82 percent households/respondents in intervention VDCs (compared to 81% in control) were aware about VDC budget allocations. Very small proportion of households/respondents (10% in intervention, and 12% in control) were aware about VDC budgets allocated for various heading, and especially targeted to women, children and disadvantaged groups.
Table 16. Awareness about VDC Council and planning/budgeting procedure
Are you aware about Are you aware about Are you aware about VDC VDC Council? how VDC allocates its budget distributed by budget? heading? Yes No Yes No Yes No Control 34.3% 65.7% 18.5% 81.5% 12.4% 87.6% Intervention 22.4% 77.6% 19.4% 80.6% 9.5% 90.5% Total 27.9% 72.1% 19.0% 81.0% 10.8% 89.2%
During qualitative data collection in project VDCs, a recurrent theme was lack of participation of local people in ward level or village level assemblies. In FGDs conducted with Citizen Awareness Center in Surkhet district, quite nominal number of people reported participating in a ward meeting. The reason cited for non participation was lack of information about the time and venue of the meetings and only men being informed about the meetings. In Pyuthan, the participants highlighted the fact that late presence is larger problem than non-attendance. Mostly women reach to the program late because of their household work load, limited priority, and lack of proper calculation of time (sometimes also due to unavailability of watch).
In principle, participants of the study were aware of the provision of budget allocation for women, children and disadvantaged groups but were unaware of how those funds were allocated and where they were spent.
Through CAC and WCF, we really try to acquire budget form VDC, and we are also aware about allocations. (FGD with CAC, Sari)
It is said (that) 10 percent s allocated (for dalits) but where does it go, to what kind of dalits it goes , we do not know.(FGD with CAC, Uttarganga)
I went to a program by women’s network and asked where the budget for women was utilized. I had a huge debate with them. (FGD with CAC, Uttarganga)
We do not know where the budget allocated for target groups is spent.(FGD with WCF, Uttarganga)
Level of information The study respondents were asked to rate their level of information in the rating scale of 0-5. Based on the rating, it was found that the respondents believe to have very less information about VDC Council and budget allocation procedure.
Page | 25 Chart 6. Rating on information about VDC Council and budget allocation procedure
Treatment Control
Rating on information about 0,28 budget expenditure procedure 0,52
Rating on information about 0,45 village assembly 0,81
0 1 2 3 4 5
Key information sources For most of the households/respondents, the key sources of information related to local level activities were neighbors (55% for intervention and 48% for control) followed by VDC secretary (24% for intervention and 23% for control), local groups (7%), and local media (6%). Very negligible proportion received information through CBO, local NGO or poster/pamphlets.
Chart 7. Distribution of information source
Others Local NGO Posters/Pamphlet 4% 1% Local Media 6% s Local group 1% 7% CBO 2% VDC Secretary 24%
Neighbors 55%
The distribution of population by source of information followed similar trend for control and intervention VDCs.
Table 17. Information Sources (Control and Intervention)
Local Local Local VDC Posters/P NGO Media group CBO Neighbors Secretary amphlets Others Control 1.3% 11.1% 12.9% 2.0% 48.4% 23.2% .4% .5% Intervention .8% 6.3% 7.2% 2.2% 54.8% 23.7% .8% 4.3% * Percentages and totals are based on responses.
Page | 26 Attitude of citizen towards local government procedures The attitude of citizens towards the need to acquire information about VDC level budget allocations and also take part in the procedure was very positive. Most of the respondents/households wished to know about VDC level budget divisions (91% in intervention, 95% in control), and also consider it necessary to take part in local government procedures (87% in intervention and control).
Table 18. Do you think it is necessary to take part in local government procedures?
Do you wish to know about Do you think it is necessary to take part in VDC level budget divisions? local government procedures? Yes No Yes No Control 94.7% 5.3% 87.4% 12.6% Intervention 91.4% 8.6% 86.5% 13.5% Aggregate 93.1% 6.9% 86.9% 13.1%
Participation in VDC Council Most of the respondents/households (80% in intervention and 78% in control) reported that they were not informed about VDC Council before its organization. There was not much difference in the percentage of people who were informed and who attended the meeting. Around 18% in intervention VDCs (compared to 21% in control) reported that they have taken part in the VDC Council. The small gap in the number of people who were informed about the VDC Council and who participated in the VDC Council indicate that the larger problem in participation is lack of information or invitation to general public.
Table 19. Were you or any family member informed about VDC Council?
Were you or any family member Did you or family member informed about VDC Council? take part in VDC Council? No Yes No Yes Control 78.4% 21.6% 79.2% 20.8% Intervention 80.0% 20.0% 81.6% 18.4% Total 79.3% 20.7% 80.5% 19.5%
Among the local inhabitants who had their family members participating in the VDC Council, most of them reported that male members from their family attended the meeting. In project implementation VDCs, the proportion of households who sent exclusively male members to participate in VDC Council was 80 percent (compared to 69% in control).
Table 20. Who participated in such meeting?
If yes, who participated in such meeting? Male Female Both Control 68.5% 22.8% 8.7% Intervention 80.3% 16.4% 3.3% Total 73.2% 20.3% 6.5%
Among the people who participated in the meeting, only very few reported that they could actually speak during the VDC Council. Only around 14% respondents/households in intervention VDCs (compared to 19% from control VDCs) reported that they spoke in the VDC Council. Encouragingly, majority of respondents (53% in intervention and 62% in control) who
Page | 27 spoke in the event reported that their issues were heard. It indicates towards a positive fact that those who manage to speak out actually have chances to get their voice heard in the meeting, and thus, 'making citizen speak' could be an area to work upon.
Table 21. Speaking in the meeting and addressing the concern
Did you or family member Do you think your concern was speak in VDC Council? addressed by the meeting? No Yes No Yes Control 80.9% 19.1% 38.2% 61.8% Intervention 86.5% 13.5% 47.1% 52.9% Aggregate 84.0% 16.0% 42.8% 57.2%
Participation in Basti meeting Compared to VDC Council and budget allocation procedures, many respondents reported that they were informed about local basti meeting. Around 43 percent respondents/households reported that they were informed about basti meeting (around 53% in control VDCs). Out of them, who were informed, majority tended to take part in the basti meeting. Around 81 percent in intervention VDCs (compared to 86% in control) who were informed about the meeting reported to attend the meeting. Similarly, a good proportion of those who attended the meeting (62% in intervention and 73% in control) also reported that they spoke in the basti meeting.
Table 22. Information and Participation in Basti Meeting
Were you or any family Did you or family Did you or family member informed member take part in member speak in about basti meeting? basti meeting? basti meeting? No Yes No Yes No Yes Control 47.5% 52.5% 13.7% 86.3% 27.0% 73.0% Intervention 56.8% 43.2% 19.0% 81.0% 37.7% 62.3% Aggregate 52.5% 47.5% 16.3% 83.7% 32.1% 67.9%
Participation in Ward Meeting After meeting at the basti level, there is a provision to have meeting at the ward level. Around half of the respondents/households (45% in intervention, 55% in control) were informed about meeting at the ward level. Out of every five households who were informed, at least a member from four participated in the event for both intervention and control groups. Out of those who participated in the meeting, around 62 percent in intervention VDCs (against 73% in control) spoke in the ward meeting.
Table 23. Information and Participation in the Ward Meeting
Were you or any family Did you or family Did you or family member informed about member take part in member speak in ward meeting? ward meeting? ward meeting? No Yes No Yes No Yes Control 44.8% 55.2% 19.9% 80.1% 26.7% 73.3% Intervention 54.8% 45.2% 21.1% 78.9% 38.2% 61.8% Aggregate 50.1% 49.9% 20.5% 79.5% 32.3% 67.7%
Ward level meetings seem to be more accessible and relevant for local people who can attend and put concrete demands in these meetings. However, timely information and targeted dissemination to the general public is not forthcoming from the VDC officials. In the CAC under
Page | 28 study, women were more prone to attend the ward level meetings and put their development concerns there. In some cases, women reported that they participated in the meeting but do not know what was actually discussed, and did not have much say during the discussions.
We know the ward meetings are to be held in Asoj. But we do not know the date when ward meeting takes Place. We do not get the letter. (FGD with CAC, Hariharpur)
In ward assembly CAC demanded for development of road. (FGD with CAC, Uttarganga)
We will demand drinking water in next ward meeting. (FGD with CAC, Hariharpur)
We go to ward assemblies. We do not know what was discussed during the meeting. The VDC budget is often allocated to roads, drinking water, maintenance of bridge, and walking trail. (FGD with women, Sari)
Baseline status of 14-step plan Out of 14-step plan, four steps (step 5,6,7 and 8) were directly related to the VDC level planning and budgeting. The VDCs have followed the plan, and have conducted activities as required. However, the activities are largely conducted to fulfill the mandatory requirements, lack adequate technical rigor, and also suffers in acquiring adequate participation of people, especially women and disadvantaged groups.
14-Step Plan Followed? Remarks 1 Directives and budget ceiling determined at national level 2 Review of directives and budget ceiling at district level 3 Dissemination of directives and budget ceilings across VDCs 4 VDC analysis meeting 5 Planning Organized At the basti level, planning meetings are organized facilitated by workshop at basti VDC officials, and with participation of WCF. The workshop level to identify mostly collect demands from the basti in the form of priorities. projects Such demand collection often end up getting plans such as road, drinking water, and community buildings. 6 Ward Committee Organized The ward committees are organized in similar fashion to basti meeting to level, if organized separately. WCF plays key role in organizing prioritize the basti ward level meeting3. They discuss on priorities set by basti level. project proposals The priorities are set based on urgency of the demand. The overall planning framework of VDC is not utilized adequately at the ward level which leaves the local participants dissatisfied. 7 VDC (IPC) to Organized The proposals are consolidated by IPC and recommend for consolidate ward approval. The IPC suffer in terms of technical human resource, proposals and and often struggle to select most feasible and suitable priority of recommend the community. IPCs follow urgency and sensitivity of the approval proposed priority rather than available data and evidence. The unavailability of information also affects performance of IPC. 8 Village Council Organized The meetings are organized following recommendation by IPC. Meeting to The village council involves limited participation of general approve budget public, and are dominated by influential members of the local proposal community. 9 Ilaka level workshop 10 Sectoral coordination committee meeting 11 Integrated Plan Formulation Committee Meeting 12 District Development Committee Meeting 13 District Council Meeting 14 Implementation of District Development Plan
3 In addition toorganzing ward level meeting, selected representatives from WCF also organizes basti level meetings within different settlements of ward, represent in Integrated Planning Committee (IPC), participate in village council, and be responsible various other development affairs which require ward levle decisions.
Page | 29 Local Planning and Budgeting Outcomes The status of local planning and budgeting outcomes indicate lower participation of public in the decision making process, improved resource allocations which still need to be strengthened to make it gender responsive, and local resource allocations not following community's demand and aspirations.
Actual number of participants in VDC Council On an average, there were around 84 participants in the VDC Council (ranging in between 23 to 186 people). In general, this figure indicates that the participation of general public in the VDC Council is very low: less than five percent of the total households in the village have participated in the VDC Council. Among the participants, around 25 percent (21 out of 84) were women, and around 14 percent (12 out of 84) were dalits. On an average, around 14 were local minority groups, four members were children, five participants were from CAC, and around 10 participants were from NGO/CBO. In overall, the participation of women is much lower than required, and there are number of barriers to it. Women are not informed individually, they have to manage time out of their busy schedule of household work, and they also suffer in terms of self- confidence to participate and speak in the meeting.
They send letters to men to attend ward assembly… men go to ward assembly. They go there but do not put forward their opinion. (FGD with CAC, Hariharpur VDC)
We go to ward assembly when we get information from the LGCDP’s Social Mobilizer. (FGD with CAC, Uttarganga)
They call us in Integrated Planning Committee (IPC) but the we do not know the concrete decisions, political parties allocate the budget. (FGD with CAC, Uttarganga)
We do not got to community meetings because we are not aware about it, we need to do work at home, and what is the point in going to the meeting as we can not speak in the meeting. (FGD with women, Sari)
We do not attend because nobody listen to us. (...) First, there should be a situation where they listen and give value to what women think and share. (FGD with women, Nayagaun)
The VDC officials had mixed observations on women's participation in their VDC. In their opinion, while the mandatory participation requirements for women are met and there has been some improvement in the number of women participants in the decision making procedures, the participation is not yet meaningful and result oriented. Only a small proportion of VDC budget is allocated in women's priorities. There is a tendency among stakeholders in VDC to prioritize infrastructure development than capacity building and other aspects. The VDC budgets in women's priorities are mostly allocated in skills training, and capacity building workshops. Since such efforts have not been evaluated so far, it is difficult to estimate how effective these activities are.
In IPC, there are two women. There are representative from the target groups committee – 4 in number. There are also children in the committee. (IDI with VDC Secretary, Surkhet)
The participation of women is satisfactory. There are women led cooperatives. The capacity building activities are also satisfactory. (IDI with VDC Secretary, Pyuthan)
Women and dalit are present (in the planning process) but they do not speak out. At least one member from one household attends the meeting. The local heads, elites talk more. We send out posters, apart from that we haven’t done anything to assure their presence in the meeting. (IDI with VDC Secretary, Surkhet)
Page | 30 Women have to struggle to ensure allocations on women's priorities. Among the VDC level stakeholders, there is a understanding that the priority should be on infrastructure. The capacity building activities do not have immediate visible effects. (IDI with VDC Secretary, Pyuthan)
To increase women's participation, we have organized orientation programs, and also invited them in meetings and gatherings. There is improvement in terms of number of women. However, meaningful participation is not yet there. The participation of women also requires change in social traditions/customs, and thus, achieving changes within a short time is difficult. The participation of women should be meaningful and should influence local decision making. (ID with VDC Secretary, Pyuthan)
Women ask for sewing trainings. The target groups committee has taken funds for goat raising, handed over to them for certain income generating projects which they utilized by themselves. These committees make plans for the targeted budgets. (IDI with VDC Secretary, Pyuthan)
Allocations On an average, during FY 2012/13, the annual budget allocations of VDC was around NPR 1,778,660 ranging between NPR 1,080,000 to NPR 5,477,392. All VDCs allocated budget for women, children and minorities though the proportion and amount differed to some extent. On average, VDCs allocated around NPR 126,988 which was around 7% on an average. There was general tendency of VDCs to set aside 10 percent of the total VDC allocations for women's priorities. However, the allocation of budget for women’s priorities was not found to have followed basic guiding principles of gender responsive budgeting. After setting aside 10 percent budget specific to women, remaining resources are distributed to other priorities of VDC without considering gender based dimensions in each priorities. According to VDC secretaries and also based on discussion at the communities, the allocations of VDC budget are improving: specific allocations to women and children have started, and the budget making process involves wider procedure than before. However, they also agree at the same time that, the process of formulating budget are not yet participatory, and the budgets are not adequately mobilized based on community's priorities. The political parties, and local influential individuals have larger say when it comes to budget allocations for various priorities. During qualitative discussions, the participants expressed their dissatisfaction with the current pattern of budget allocations.
The budget is allocated mostly to school, road and water. If budgets are available for us to decide upon, we will invest in literacy programs, skill trainings (such as stitching), capacity development, and seed money to start some small business. (FGD with CAC members in Sari)
Though we are not aware about budget allocation meetings. Some amount (NPR, 20,000) has been allocated for women which was spent to provide stitching training to 9 women from the local area. It is not enough we need training on various other skills for many women. (FGD with women's group in Nayagaun)
We have also demanded budget from VDC .around Rs. 33,000 was released which allowed us to conduct a literacy class. We demanded RS. 50,000 for a building construction but decision were made to allocate only 20,000. A building is needed for CAC. (FGD with CAC members, Uttarganga)
According to VDC officials, they follow standard procedures in deciding allocations. The demands are collected from the basti and ward level, the Integrated Planning Committee (IPC) identifies key priorities, and the VDC Council makes formal decision on allocations. In opinion of community people, decisions on allocations are made beforehand and village assemblies are organized to complete the formalities. Moreover, village assemblies are only attended by special invitees and are often dominated by
Page | 31 representatives from political parties. One of the reasons for the budget allocations to be on ad-hoc basis is unavailability of periodic plan (prepared based on research, evidences, and proper needs assessment), and also lack of adequate information system with VDC: only 4 out of 24 VDCs had periodic development plan, and only 33 percent (8 in 22) had village profile or other information system to base their planning on. According to some VDC officials, the activities have become inefficient, ineffective and shortsighted since the existing provisions require the budget allocations to be done on annual cycle. Though the 14-step procedure has helped to enhance the participation of citizen in planning process, it is inadequate, and the implementation is largely ineffective.
VDC level budget allocations: A case of Bijuwar VDC, Pyuthan The VDCs have two source of income: (a) amount disbursed from government through MOFALD, and (b) amount locally generated through local revenue (fees, taxes, and charges). At the VDC level, the budget distribution and allocation involves separate procedure for current and capital budget. The current expenditure is spent based on government norms chiefly involving social security expenses. The capital expenditure involves decision at the VDC level based on VDC level decisions.
In Bijuwar VDC, Pyuthan, the total amount available for expenditure was 2,182,563.27. The VDC first separated out 35% for target groups: 9% for children, 9% for women, and 14% for dalits, janajati, PWDs, senior citizen. Then after, amount was separate for agriculture (14%) and WASH (20%). The remaining budget after mandatory allocations to different groups and sector was 34 percent of the total, and was mostly allocated for infrastructure. The distribution of actual budget by various heading is given below:
Non- Target Budget Children (Infrastructure) 9% 34% Women 9% Dalit, Janjati, PWDs, senior citizen 14%
Agriculture 14% WASH Sports and 20% sports ground 0%
Within budget allocated for target group, the allocations were further divided into headings such as capacity development, organizational development, skills development, and infrastructure development. The detailed budget is as follows:
Heading Amount Allocated proportion (%) Income (Capital) 2,180,000.00 Carry forward from last year 111,405.00 Expenditure 2,182,563.27 1. Children 218,256.32 10 1.1 Capacity building 68,256.32 1.2 Organizational development 30,000.00 1.3 Infrastructure development 120,000.00 2. Women 218,256.32 10
Page | 32 Heading Amount Allocated proportion (%) 2.1 capacity building 88,256.32 2.2 Infrastructure development 40,000.00 2.3 Skills development 50,000.00 2.4 Organizational development 40,000.00 3. Dalit, Janjati, PWDs, Senior Citizen 327,384.43 15 3.1 Dalit 162,384.43 3.2 People with disabilities 110,000.00 3.3 Janajatis 35,000.00 3.4 Senior citizen 20,000.00 4. Agriculture 327,384.43 15 5. Sports and sports ground 10,000.00 6. WASH 488,426.00 22 Behavior change 263,426.00 Sanitation 225,000.00 7. Remaining budget (Infrastructure) 821,774.15 38 7.1 Large projects 410,887.75 7.2 Small projects 410,887.75
Relevance to community demand Based on perception of community, majority of the respondents/households (59% for intervention as well as control) reported that they do not know whether the allocation is in line with community demand. This figure indicates towards the fact that most of the people do not have information about VDC level budget allocations to determine whether it is in line with community demand. Around 1 in every 3 households/respondents perceived that the allocation is in line with the community demand.
Table 24. Is the VDC allocation in line with community demand? Yes No Don't know Control 33.3% 7.0% 59.7% Intervention 34.0% 6.7% 59.3% Aggregate 33.7% 6.8% 59.5%
3.4 Local Level Support Mechanism and Structures
Local Non-State Actors Most of the respondents had positive attitude towards being member of local group/committee. Around 85 percent in the project implementation VDCs (compared to 10% in control) reported that it is necessary to be a member of local group/committee. The tendency of households to be member of a local group/committee was widespread: around 61 percent respondents in project implemented VDCs (compared to 57% in control) reported that they are part of local group. Among those who are themselves not a member of group, around 33 percent (33% in control) reported that someone else from their family is the member.
Table 25. Membership and Participation in local groups/committee Do you think it is Are you member If you are not member, are necessary to be a member of any group or there any one else member of local group/committee? committee? from this committee? Yes No Yes No Yes No Control 89.8% 10.2% 57.2% 42.8% 31.7% 68.3% Intervention 85.3% 14.7% 60.5% 39.5% 33.1% 66.9% Aggregate 87.4% 12.6% 58.9% 41.1% 32.5% 67.5%
Page | 33 Membership/Groups Most of the respondents/households had member in saving credit group (21%) followed by mother's group (19%), and Community Forest User Group (CFUG). Interestingly, around 9 percent respondents (6% for control) reported that there is someone from their family who is member of Citizen Awareness Center (CAC), and around Six percent (6% for control) reported to be member of Ward Citizen Forum (WCF).
Chart 8. Memberships/Groups MPC CFUG Others 1% 10% SMC 6% 20% PTA 3% IPC HFOMC 1% 0% CAC NGO 9% 4% WCF 6% Saving Group Mothers Group 21% 19%
There is not much difference between control and intervention VDCs in terms of distribution of respondents by groups. The proportion of respondents by types of group was similar.
Table 26. Groups and proportion of members
MPC CFUG SMC PTA HFOMC NGO Saving Mothers WCF CAC IPC Others Group Group Control 2.1% 8.2% 4.9% 1.5% .4% 6.5% 19.6% 17.7% 5.8% 6.1% 1.2% 26.1% Interventio 1.0% 9.7% 5.9% 2.6% .5% 4.5% 21.3% 19.1% 6.2% 8.7% 1.0% 19.6% n Percentages and totals are based on responses. * MPC - Multi Party Committee, CFUG - Community Forest User Group, SMC - School Management Committee, PTA - Parent Teacher Association, HFOMC - Health Facility Operation and Management Committee, WCF - Ward Citizen Forum, CAC - Citizen Awareness Center, IPC - Integrated Planning Committee
Leadership Positions The participation of the respondents/households in the leadership positions of local group/committee was mediocre. Around 13 percent respondents in project implemented VDCs (compared to 7%of the respondents in control) reported that they or their family member are chairperson of at least one local group/committee. Though the share of general community in leadership position can be considered to be in acceptable range, most of the leadership positions and key posts are occupied by male leading to lower participation of the female members in the community. This fact was discussed during the qualitative discussions. Women are mostly limited as members in the groups, and who are often made members to fulfill the mandatory requirements.
Outcomes Local groups/committee can be non-state actors who contribute in build agency of citizens, especially of women and disadvantaged groups so that their access to local resources, and their participation in local governance process could be strengthened. There are very few
Page | 34 respondents/households who reported that the local groups/committees have been their source of information about local governance and management: 12 percent in intervention VDCs (compared to 14% in control) reported that they have taken information from local groups. There are slightly larger proportion of respondents (29% for intervention and 38% for control) who believe that their group/community has made demand with VDC considering the need and priorities of the group members.
Table 27. Information source and demand with VDC Have you taken information Has your group/committee from local groups about local made demand with VDC? governance and management? Yes No Yes No Control 14.0% 86.0% 37.7% 62.3% Intervention 12.3% 87.7% 29.1% 70.9% Aggregate 13.1% 86.9% 33.1% 66.9%
Ward Citizen Forum Compared to other structures such as CAC, IPC and Social Audit, slightly larger proportion of respondents were aware about ward citizen forum: around 30 percent respondents/households in project intervention area (compared to 38% in control) reported that they are aware about Ward Citizen Forum (WCF). The level of awareness (expressed in the rating scale of 0-5) was very low in general, though higher for WCF compared to other structure. The rating was slightly higher for control areas than intervention areas.
Chart 9. Level of information about WCF, CAC and Social Audit
Treatment Control
Rating on information 0,34 about social audit 0,66
Rating on information 0,65 about WCF 1,01
Rating on information 0,52 about CAC 0,59
0 1 2 3 4 5
There were WCFs formed in all wards of project implemented VDCs. Around 6 percent respondents/households in the intervention VDCs reported that at least a person from their family is a member of WCF. Ward Citizen Forum (WCF) has a significant role in VDC planning. They were seen active in facilitating ward level meetings and planning prioritization whereas their active participation thinned out as planning process went up. Owing to the large composition of Ward Citizens Forum (WCF) it was known to many participants. Their big size was also cited as a reason why they were ineffective in making concrete consensus.
Page | 35 They (WCF) are only involved in the planning when we take them to the ward level meetings. Ward citizens forums in our VDC are inactive. Sometimes they don’t sit in a meeting in a year. Due to their big size they cannot agree or meet regularly. (KII with VDC secretary)
We have 25 members. We organize ward level discussions. We collect, categorize and prioritize demands based on priority areas. We have minutes whenever we have a meeting. (FGD with WCF members, Sari)
Citizen Awareness Center (CAC) The Citizen Awareness Center (CAC) are formed at the community level with participation of local marginalized groups. Most of the respondents/households were completely unaware about Citizen Awareness Center (CAC). Around 76 percent households HHs/respondents reported that they are unaware about CAC compared to around 81 percent in the control area. In terms of participation, around 9 percent respondents in project intervention VDCs (compared to 6 percent in control VDCs) reported that they are also member of CAC.
Some key facts/figures related to CAC obtained from a short and rapid survey with CAC are as follows: Most of the facilitators (92%) were local resident of the VDC. Only one in every two facilitators was female. The CAC centers are often targeted for special communities. Around 58 percent of them were targeted for dalits, local disadvantaged groups, and the communities which are financially poor. On an average, a CAC benefited around 26 members. Among them, 95 percent participants were female, and around 62 percent were from the local marginalized and disadvantaged groups. Among the CACs, more than 55 percent were meeting once in a month, while around 38 percent were meeting more frequently, i.e. once in a week. The meeting time was mostly during the morning (around 7am - 8am) and afternoon (11am to 1pm), for around an hour. The attendance rate of CAC members in latest CAC meeting was 70 percent. The attendance rate was slightly lower for female (68%) compared to overall average. One of the most common topic and scope for CAC was income generation and livelihood: more than 92 percent CACs had income generation as a topic of discussion. Around 69 percent (9 out of 13) of CACs were also invited to join in the VDC Council. On an average, two members per CAC attended such meeting. There were around 46 percent CACs who also had some of their members in IPC. The number of participants in IPC from CAC was little less than 1 person per CAC. Similarly, around 38 percent CACs also had their members participate in public audit/hearing. On an average, three members took part in the event of public audit/hearing per CAC.
CAC has been seen as a very useful interface between governing structures and citizen. In a CAC facilitated by the LGCDP mobilizer, the information flow between VDC and CAC was better as the mobilizer liaised the participation. In Surkhet, CAC had made a significant participation in ward assembly. However, their representation in higher level meetings and in final budget allocation was still non-existent. CAC were not engaged in advocacy and monitoring activities to make government responsive and responsible. In a CAC in Pyuthan, the participants reported that they meet regularly to save NPR 10 per person, calculate the amount, and if there are discussions, they often discuss about hygiene and sanitation, toilet use, and safer practices.
Satisfaction with services Majority of the respondents (71% in intervention, 51% in control) in project implemented VDCs reported that they are satisfied with the service providers within the VDC. Some of them were neutral (19% for intervention, 30% for control) and small proportion of them were dissatisfied.
Page | 36 Table 28. How satisfied you are with service providers in VDC?
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied Control 3.1% 14.6% 30.4% 51.4% .6% Intervention .1% 10.0% 18.8% 70.5% .6% Aggregate 1.5% 12.1% 24.2% 61.6% .6%
Though most of the citizens reported that they are satisfied, and there were still sizable proportion dissatisfied or neutral, people express that they are not comfortable to raise their concerns. Around 18 percent respondents (compared to 22% for control) reported that they are not aware about the place and procedure to raise their concern if they are not satisfied with the services.
3.5 Monitoring and Accountability Arrangements
Citizen charter Citizen charters are mandatory government requirements for all service centers/points through which service points/centers disseminate their information about services, time necessary to acquire those services, required documents, and service charges. Majority of the respondents were unaware about citizen charter. There were only 16 percent respondents in project intervention areas (compared to 12% in control) who were aware about citizen charter.
Chart 10. Are you aware about citizen charter?
25,00% 20,70% 20,00% 15,40% 16,20% 15,90% 15,00% 11,00% 10,00%
5,00%
0,00% Control Treatment Pyuthan Surkhet Aggreage
As reported by the respondents, the citizen charter are only available in some offices. Majority of the respondents (48% in intervention compared to 64% in control) reported that the citizen charter are available in some offices.
Right to Information The Right to Information (RTI) is the core aspect behind availability or unavailability of information points and monitoring/evaluation and accountability mechanisms. Similar to other cases, large majority of respondents (13% in intervention and 17% in control) were unaware about the right to information provisions. Out of those who are aware and informed about RTI, a good proportion also tried to ask for information from service points citing the right to information. Around 59 percent of the respondents (compared to 42% in control) who reported to be aware about right to information have demanded information following RTI.
Page | 37 Table 29. Right to information and its use Are you aware about Right If Yes, have you demanded to Information? information following RTI? Yes No Yes No Control 17.0% 83.0% 41.5% 58.5% Intervention 12.5% 87.5% 59.3% 40.7% Aggregate 14.5% 85.5% 49.7% 50.3% Social Audit Similar to other phenomenon and structure, a large majority of respondents/households (91% for intervention and 89 percent for control) reported that they do not know about VDC conducting social audit. Similarly, the proportion of respondents/HHs who were unaware about income and expenditure of other available service providing agencies within their community was also fairly low. Around 12 percent households/respondents reported that they are aware about income and expenditure of nearest school while only four percent reported that they are aware about same of health facilities.
Table 30. Awareness about income and expenditure in school and health facility? Are you aware about income and Are you aware about income and expenditure of nearest school? expenditure of nearest health facilities? Yes No Yes No Control 12.1% 87.9% 3.9% 96.1% Intervention 12.6% 87.4% 4.4% 95.6% Aggregate 12.4% 87.6% 4.2% 95.8%
Participation in social audit The tendency of citizens to participate in social audit (or VDC level review of income and expenditure) was found to be average. A sizable proportion of respondents (51% in intervention and 42% in control) out of those reported to have heard about social audit in VDC reported that they have participated in the social audit. Encouragingly, the participation was found to be a start point for the public to speak and express their opinion. Among those who participated in social audit, around 79 percent in intervention (compared to 82% in control area) reported that they asked questions during social audit. This indicates towards need to enable general public especially target group to participate in the program by making the social audit related information available to them on time.
Table 31. Participation in social audit Have you participated If Yes, did you ask any in social audit? question during social audit? Yes No Yes No Control 41.7% 58.3% 82.1% 17.9% Intervention 50.8% 49.2% 78.6% 21.4% Aggregate 45.9% 54.1% 80.4% 19.6%
Although social audit were seem to be taking place in good proportion, participants expressed that they are done to fulfill a criteria rather than using it effectively to practice accountability.
It is done to fulfill a formality. They come but they do not care whether all people who need to be there- especially the beneficiaries are present. They do it in front of few people and they go. ( WCF member, Uttarganga)
We went to an audit for a kulo (small irrigation canal) in another village. Women in the audience were surprised when they read out their names. They didn’t know they were also in the committee.(FGD with CAC, Hariharpur)
Page | 38 Gender Audit Very few instances of practices of gender audit was found by the study. During last fiscal year, gender audit was conducted in 7 out of 24 VDCs (29%)4. Since the practice of gender audit was rare, there are also very few respondents who reported to have heard about gender audit being conducted in their VDC: only around 3.8 percent respondents/households in intervention (compared to 3.4% in control) reported that they have heard about gender audit. The proportion of respondents who have attended the gender audit program after hearing about it was around 46 percent for project implemented areas (38% for control areas), and among who took part in the program, around 69 percent in intervention locations asked questions (compared to 78% in control areas).
Table 32: Participation in gender audit
Have you heard about If yes, have you If yes, have you asked VDC conducting taken part in the questions during such gender audit? gender audit? gender audit? Yes No Yes No Yes No Control 3.4% 96.6% 37.5% 62.5% 77.8% 22.2% Intervention 3.8% 96.2% 46.4% 53.6% 69.2% 30.8% Intervention 3.6% 96.4% 42.3% 57.7% 72.7% 27.3%
Public Audit/Hearing The public audit/hearing, being mandatory for any VDC level project of total cost higher than NPR 200,000, was reported to have been organized for 28 out of 34 projects (where public audit/hearing was mandatory). Based on the information provided by VDCs, around 82 percent project had public audit/hearing in place. Though public audit/hearing was reported to have been organized in for most of the projects above 200,000, larg proportion of respondents were not aware about public audit/hearing. Around 86 percent respondents in intervention VDCs (against 73% in control VDCs) reported that not being aware of public audit/hearing in there area.
Table 33. Information and Participation Were you or any family Did you or family Did you or family member informed member take part in member speak in about public public ward public audit/hearing? audit/hearing? audit/hearing? No Yes No Yes No Yes Control 81.9% 18.1% 25.2% 74.8% 35.9% 64.1% Intervention 81.5% 18.5% 33.3% 66.7% 49% 51% Aggregate 81.7% 18.3% 29.6% 70.4% 43.6% 57.4%
Less than one in five respondents/households (18.5% for intervention and 18.1% for control) recall being informed about the public audit/hearing program, despite that the public audit/hearing programs are targeted to publics and desire involvement of all citizens in the community. A sizable proportion (67% for intervention) of those who heard about it attended the meeting, and among those who participated, more than half (51% for intervention) reported that they spoke during the hearing program.
4 The data might have been inflated due to problem in understanding of gender audit. During discussions with VDC officials, it was noted that they are not very clear about gender audit, its procedure, and principles. The project officials, in consultation, reported that there are no VDCs in Pyuthan and Surkhet who have conducted gender audit.
Page | 39 Community Score Board (CSB) All 24 VDCs (who provided the information) reported that they do not have practice of conducting community score board or activities of similar nature. The CSB is a new initiative of the project, and thus is very new to the study participants and VDC officials.
Page | 40 Chapter 4 Synopsis & Way Forward
This chapter concludes the report with overall synopsis of the study findings summarized by objectives and estimated result areas. In addition, this chapter also identifies key priorities for the projects based on the baseline study findings, and also suggests way forward.
4.1 Synopsis
Overall status: Project Objectives The existing status of local government seems lacking in implementing sustainable participatory and gender-responsive financial management systems. Based on updated MC criteria for VDCs, the number of VDC scoring 19 out of 19 were only 2 out of 24. In terms of meeting mandatory requirements, almost all VDCs have managed to do so by ensuring that they followed 14-step. The 14-step plan did not exclusively focus in gender responsive budgeting and the social audits conducted annually by VDCs were mere review and dissemination of financial status than an actual participative public audit. The VDC budget allocations for different priority sectors/groups have managed to meet desired allocation requirements (i.e. 30% allocated for the target population) though the exact allocations, diversification and their effectiveness is in question. For example: capacity building schemes involving training to local women funded as part of funding in women's priorities are not evaluated, and similar activities are continued for another year. There are no evaluation mechanisms to assess the performance and impact of the investments made by VDC.
At present, the involvement of CSOs in holding the government accountable is very poor. The advocacies are very few, and are not often based on evidences. The CSOs suffer in terms of financial resources, human resources, and do not have advocacy plan to hold government accountable within their priorities. The CACs, though available, are mostly limited to saving and credit activities, and have not taken any meaningful advocacy initiatives.
Table 34. Status of overall objective
Objective Proposed/Adjusted Indicator Status Target
Specific objective 1 MC Score VDC (Obtaining score 1 2 24 Support local governments in 24 in 19 out of 19 indicators) Village Development Committees Number of VDCs following 14 step 22 24 (VDCs) in Pyuthan and Surkhet plan for gender responsive districts in implementing budgeting5 sustainable participatory and % of budget allocated for women 7.10% 10 gender-responsive financial % of budget allocated for DAG 9.06% 15 management systems. % of budget allocated for children 9.36% 10 No. of VDCs with annual audit 23 24 disseminated to citizens Specific Objective 2 Number of advocacy initiatives 0 80 (1 per CAC) Coordinate and strengthen the taken by CACs. engagement of civil society Number of evidence based 0 10 (8 district, 2 at organizations in holding the advocacy initiatives by CSOs national level)
5 There is a note of caution in explaining these figures. The baseline study clearly points out that the 14-step planning process are being followed though the activities are not adequatel participatory, and effective.The activities are often implemented to complete the formalities so that VDC can graduate in Minnimum Conditions (MC) assessment.
Page | 41 Objective Proposed/Adjusted Indicator Status Target government accountable for a Number of VDCs following 14 step 22 24 transparent, efficient and gender- plan for gender responsive responsive use of public finances budgeting at VDC, district and national level
Baseline Status: Expected Result 1 Citizen Awareness Centers (CAC) exists in all 24 VDCs. A VDC has only around 1-2 CACs available within their scope with participation of around 25-30 individuals. In general, around 9 percent participants in the household survey indicated that they or their family members attend CAC meetings. People consider CAC to be very useful structure where they get to learn and share their experience with other participants who are mostly women. One in three CACs have also reported to have been officially invited to attend village assemblies, and around 2 members from CAC attend VDC Council and 1 member participate in Integrated Planning Committee. CAC structures are largely under-utilized since their involvement in advocacy, building agency of women/disadvantaged groups to hold government accountable, and promoting learning/sharing on local government issues is very limited6.
Table 35. ER1 Indicators and Status Objective Proposed/Adjusted Indicator Status Target
ER1. Around % of respondents (with membership in CAC) who 87% 70 80 CACs are believe they should be involved in the local governance actively % of respondents (who could also be member of CAC) 18% 20 engaged in participating in the VDC Council, and or village level participatory discussions. budget Average number of members from CAC who attended 2 planning, VDC Council allocation and % of CACs whose members are invivted to attend VDC 69% expenditure Council monitoring # of CAC gender responsive proposals get approved N/A 1 proposal from a gender and funded through VDC budgets. per CAC perspective. Average number of female from CAC who are 1 nominated to IPC % of female CAC members nominated to WCF and N/A 70 IPC are budget literate and perceive to have more influence. % of female respondents (who could also be member N/A 70 of CAC) who are budget literate
Baseline Status: Expected Result 2 The participatory 14-step plan formulation procedures are implemented. However, the planning process is not gender responsive, and does not effectively involve the procedure that could bring in people's needs and aspirations in the planning process. The process does not involve participation of general public in the decision making procedure: the involvement of general public is high in basti and ward level but very low in VDC Council. Though citizens and especially women are very positive towards the need to be informed about local governance procedure and are interested in taking part in such events, their participation is not yet
6 Citizen Awareness Centers (CACs) are available beyond Sankalpa and CSP. Local Governance and Community Development Program (LGCDP), a multi donor-initiative, also have provision to establish CACs in few wards within VDC where the majority of inhabitants are marginalized groups such as dalits, minority janajatis etc.
Page | 42 meaningful. They are often only involved in the discussions to make decisions about the budget set aside for them. The invitations are sent to households/families rather than individuals, hence, male members of the family tend to attend the meeting more often than female members. The public audit/hearing and social audit programs are being organized in many occasions. However, very few people responded to have attended those events, and those who have attended such program report that the events are focused in completing the activities rather than having in-depth discussions on the efficiency of the procedure, income and expenditure pattern etc. On the whole, the situation is improving, and structures and procedure are being implemented to meet mandatory requirements which require further strengthening and demand side back up.
Table 36. ER2 Indicators and Status Objective Proposed/Adjusted Indicator Status Target
ER 2: Local # of VDCs have conducted basti and ward 24 24 government actors at level meetings with participation of women 24 VDCs implement and DAG to solicit proposals and prioritize participatory and the local needs in the VDC budget. gender-responsive % of households/ respondents who have 36 planning and participated in ward level meetings budgeting processes % of VDC projects above 200,000 with public 82 100 and conduct public audit/hearing in place audits on VDC % of households/ respondents who have 12 60 (dalits) expenditure participated in the public audit/hearing 50 (women) No. of VDC with feedback and complaints 10 (23) 24 mechanism in place Exchange implementation experiences and N/A establish relationship with MOF GRB unit to fine tune the GRB and DAG inclusion model
Baseline Status: Expected Result 3 CSOs were normally invited during the VDC Council and other key events/programs organized by VDC. However, the involvement of CSOs in monitoring the local government budget allocation and expenditure was found to be limited. In VDCs were CSP program was implemented and where LGCDP is currently under implementation, local CSOs mobilized human resource and also worked closely with VDC to support planning and budgeting process. Based on available baseline data, the CSOs involved in Sankalpa implementation has good instituational experience and expertise in implementing governance related projects. However, the human resources needs further capacity building, and there needs some work to develop CSOs to serve as an interface between the local government and public.
Table 37. ER3 Indicators and results
Objective Proposed/Adjusted Indicator Status Target
R3 CSOs in the two # of CSOs in target districts have increased 0 10 target districts are understanding of GRB and gender budget engaged in auditing. monitoring the local # of mock citizen budgets compiled and 0 2 per district. governments’ budget compared to actual VDC budgets. allocation and No. of VDC who have conducted gender 0 12 expenditure. audits
Page | 43
Baseline Status: Expected Result 4 During the baseline period, a clear framework of CSOs and their network was not available at the district and national level. The stakeholders at the district level consider that it is essential to bring field level findings to central level, and initiate evidence based policy advocacy.
Table 38. ER4 Indicators and Status Objective Proposed/Adjusted Indicator Status Target
ER4 Evidence from district level (mock citizen CSO coalitions from budget; gap review; gender budget audit) is two target districts shared with national level stakeholders and national level are (MOFALD, MOF, NPS, MWCSW, UN, advocating for gender INGOs, CSOs) responsive and DAG CSOs at district level have prioritized issues At least 2 inclusive budgets at for advocacy and led targeted advocacy meetings per national level initiatives. year
4.2 Key points of consideration
The study findings as presented and discussed earlier reflect the following points for consideration of the project team:
The knowledge, attitude and practice served as barriers to meaningful participation of local citizens especially women and disadvantaged groups. As highlighted in the key study findings, the general public did not have adequate knowledge and information about local governance procedures. Most of the households/respondents reported that they are unaware about VDC Council: around 78 percent in intervention (compared to 55 percent in control) reported that they are not aware about VDC Council. In many cases, they were not informed by the system about the events and need for their participation.
Wherever informed, the tendency of households has been to send or be present in the meeting or activities. Based on the discussions, when information is passed to family, probability of male participation would be higher than female. In general, the participation of general public in the VDC Council is very low: less than five percent of the total households in the village have participated in the VDC Council. Among the participants, around 25 percent (21 out of 84) were women, and around 14 percent (12 out of 84) were dalits. On average, around 14 were local minority groups, four members were children, five participants were from CAC, and around 10 participants were from NGO/CBO.
The main source of information about local governance was neighbors followed by VDC secretary. Interestingly, local women's group, local CBOs, and other form of networks available at the community level were not the preferred or significnat information source about governance related information. Once informed, the participation of the public, and their roles in the activities they participated was found to be at good state. In majority of cases, people who have participated have spoken and also believe that their concerns were listened. For example: Around half of the respondents/households (45% in intervention, 55% in control) were informed about meeting at the ward level. Out of every five households who were informed, at least a member from four participated in the event for both intervention and control. Out of those who participated in the meeting,
Page | 44 around 62 percent in intervention VDCs (against 73% in control) spoke in the ward meeting. This could also be the result of the fact that so far the people who have been invited and who have participated as the active member of family/community.
Budget allocations are not gender responsive though VDCs have often managed to allocate separate budget on women's priorities. The budget allocated on women's priorities was seven percent (against expected 10%) while the budget for DAG and children was 9 percent each. The participation of women and DAGs in making decisions about other remaining budget was poor. They were often excluded from the process to make decisions about budget other than women's priorities. The budget allocations and divisions are done mostly on ad-hoc basis and are often unduly influenced by particular individuals of the community. In qualitative discussions, the stakeholders reported that the existing budget allocations do not follow community demand.
CACs are available but underutilized. Most of the respondents/households were completely unaware about CAC: around 76 percent respondents reported that they are unaware about CAC compared to around 81 percent in the control area. A few CAC members have received opportunity to take part in village level decision making: 69 percent CACs were invited in VDC Council, on an average two members from each CAC participate in VDC Council , and a member participated in the planning committee (IPC). However, CACs lacked technical human resource, did not meet regularly, did not discuss on the core topics of governance and participation, and were not adequately mobilized for advocacy and changes in governance.
The available accountability mechanisms are implemented primarily to meet mandatory requirements. More than 82 percent projects above NPR 200,000 have undergone public audit/hearing, and 23 out of 24 VDCs have conducted and disseminated social audit during last year. However, very few are aware, half of them who are informed about the procedure attend the events, and even fewer could get chance to express their views. Around 91 percent respondents in the KAP survey were not informed about social audit. In practice, around 12 percent respondents reported that they are aware about income/expenditure of school while only four percent reported to know the same about health facility. In all these procedures, the meaningful participation of general public especially women and marginalized groups is very limited. The existing mechanisms are not friendly enough to have women participate and contribute in the planning and budgeting procedure.
CBO/NGOs are often invited to take part in the decision making procedure at the local level. Around 10 out of 85 participants in the VDC Council are the representatives of local NGO. The local groups/committees including CBO/NGOs have not worked as interface between citizen and source points. Only a few proportion of respondents (around 29%) reported that their group/network has helped them to raise their demand with local government. Similarly, they are not useful enough to provide information to general public. Around 12 percent respondents reported that their group/network has provided information about local governance and management. The CBO/NGOs are also hindered by the lack of financial resources, human resource, and prioritization.
Though VDCs are following mandatory procedure, they lack technical human resources and holistic understanding to implement the activities. All 24 VDCs reported that they are following all necessary steps within 14-step plan formulation procedure. The activities
Page | 45 are not implemented with adequate preparations, technical rigor, and participation of people from the local community.
The involvement of political parties and their domination has contributed to allocation of budgets in traditional headings with limited consultation at the community level. There is a need to work with political parties rather than confronting with them.
There are specific barriers for women that affect their participation in the local governance process. Women’s multiple roles and household burdens hinder their participation in local level planning among others. There is a general tendency of women blaming themselves for being passiveness, and not showing enough interest in VDC processes.
4.3 Key Inferences
Generally, the purpose of the baseline study is not to suggest program on its strategies, nevertheless some points have been highlighted for discussions and consideration for the project team. Based on the synopsis and key points for considerations, the key inferences from baseline study for program intervention are as follows:
Ensure adequate information available to general public on local governance, its structures and activities. The study findings indicate that the general public, especially women have not received adequate information about local governance structures, procedure, and their involvement.
Identify suitable mechanism to delivery information to individuals. It is also suggested to find out possible ways to deliver the information at the individual level, and encourage all individuals from a family to participate if they are available. One possible route to reach to women could be through intensive discussions in Citizen Awareness Centers (CAC), local women’s groups, and similar other shared networks. Since the key information source was neighborhood, an approach of passing information through neighbors in a sequential order could also be useful.
Need to build capacity of local groups/CBOs/NGOs in a way that they serve as information points, and interface between citizen and government, and also prepare them adequately to focus on monitoring and evaluating the activities of the local government bodies.
Need to work with VDCs and other service providers to build their capacity and willingness to establish accountable and transparent governance mechanism. In addition, there is also need to work with political parties to build their understanding and welcomeness to wider public participation in the decision making process.
Re-energize and structure CAC considering the project targets. There are number of project performance indicators related to CAC, which will require the project to focus in increasing the number of CACs, regularizing their meetings, developing protocols,
Page | 46 technical capacity building of facilitators to organize effective discussions in priority topics, and encouraging CACs to initiate and run advocacy initiatives.
Some practices and structures planned to be introduced within the project (such as gender audit, community score board etc) will be new to the community. They are advanced level accountability mechanisms. Hence, a sequential process could be useful for people to get good grasp of the activities and their rationale.
4.4 Way Forward
The following are the suggested way forward:
Adjustments in program strategies Sankalpa , as a well planned and operationalised project has fixed set of activities, strategies, and targets mapped out. However, some of the baseline results advise to initiate the revisions and adjustments in program strategies to make interventions evidence based, relevant and result oriented. The data, findings and results of the baseline study give a detail view of the project area and builds a perspective which can be used to revisit some targets of the project. The baseline findings indicate towards need for spontaneous information flow to communities/individuals. For example, there are already Ward Citizen Forum, and ward meeting as well as basti meeting. The project could contribute to strengthen the efforts than recreating them.
Adjustments in targets The targets set for some key performance indicators are already achieved while some are lagging behind. There is a need to make a revised list. The program team needs to review, and make decisions about indicators and targets based on project's scope of work. For example: the target to have VDCs follow 14-step plan in planning and budgeting is already achieved, and the program could set some additional targets to make the planning process gender responsive.
Standard monitoring framework in place Based on baseline study approach and findings, there is a need to establish a monitoring mechanism to track the progress in key performance indicators over the period. There is a need to identify key performance indicators which can be monitored during the project period through data collected by PNGOs. There is a need to place monitoring systems at the CAC level, WCF level, VDC level and PNGO level so that regular information could be collected and documented to assess project performance trend. The outcome mapping conducted before the baseline study could also be useful in designing and setting up monitoring mechanism.
Capacity building of PNGOs There is a need to build capacity local PNGOs, especially project officials to establish and utilize strong monitoring and evaluation mechanism in line with the start given by baseline study. The use of monitoring data in evaluation and planning purpose needs to be ensured. CARE Nepal, as a chief implementing agency, should also look to utilize the baseline findings adequately. The study suggests to place Mid-Term Review (MTR) to follow up with baseline towards middle of the project implementation.
Page | 47
Page | 48 References
Acharya, Meena. (2011). Aid Effectiveness Agenda and Gender Responsive Budgeting: Nepal Experience. Kathmandu: Alliance for Aid Monitor Nepal.
Banskota, Krishna Hari. (2010). Gender Responsive Budget: the Nepalese Experience. Kathmandu: an article published in the Kathmandu Post Daily.
CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics). (2011). Nepal Living Standard Survey (Volume I & II). Kathmandu: CBS.
MOFALD (Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development). (2014). Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures Assessment Manual of Village Development Committee 2009 (With Amendment & Revision). Kathmandu: MOFALD.
MOF (Ministry of Finance). (2012). Guidelines for Formulation of Gender Responsive Budgets 2069. Kathmandu: MOF.
MOF (Ministry of Finance). (2014a). Budget Speech FY 2014/2015. Kathmandu: MoF.
MOF (Ministry of Finance). (2014b). Economic Survey Report Fiscal Year 2013/2014. Kathmandu: MOF.
Page | 49 Annex 1. Project Indicators and their baseline status
Objective Proposed/Adjusted Indicator Status Target Control Intervention Specific objective 1 MC Score VDC (Obtaining 2 24 Support local governments score 1 in 19 out of 19 in 24 Village Development indicators) Committees (VDCs) in Number of VDCs following 14 22 24 Pyuthan and Surkhet step plan for gender districts in implementing responsive budgeting sustainable participatory % of budget allocated for 7.10 10 and gender-responsive women financial management % of budget allocated for DAG 9.06 15 systems. % of budget allocated for 9.36 10 children No. of VDCs with annual audit 23 24 disseminated to citizens Specific Objective 2 Number of advocacy initiatives 0 80 (1 per CAC) Coordinate and strengthen taken by CACs. the engagement of civil Number of evidence based 0 10 (8 district, 2 society organizations in advocacy initiatives by CSOs at national holding the government level) accountable for a Number of VDCs following 14 22 24 transparent, efficient and step plan for gender gender-responsive use of responsive budgeting public finances at VDC, district and national level Objective Proposed/Adjusted Indicator Status Target ER1. Around 80 CACs are % of respondents (with 87 87 70 actively engaged in membership in CAC) who participatory budget believe they should be planning, allocation and involved in the local expenditure monitoring from governance a gender perspective. % of respondents (who could 21 18 20 also be member of CAC) participating in the VDC Council, and or village level discussions. Average number of members 2 from CAC who attended VDC Council % of CACs whose members N/A 69 are invited to attend VDC Council # of CAC gender responsive N/A 1 proposal per proposals get approved and CAC funded through VDC budgets. Average number of female 1 from CAC who are nominated to IPC % of female CAC members N/A 70 nominated to WCF and IPC are budget literate and
Page | 50 Objective Proposed/Adjusted Indicator Status Target Control Intervention perceive to have more influence. % of female respondents (who N/A 70 could also be member of CAC) who are budget literate ER 2: Local government # of VDCs have conducted 24 24 actors at 24 VDCs basti and ward level meetings implement participatory and with participation of women gender-responsive planning and DAG to solicit proposals and budgeting processes and prioritize the local needs in and conduct public audits the VDC budget. on VDC expenditure % of households/ respondents 44 36 who have participated in ward level meetings % of VDC projects above N/A 82 100 200,000 with public audit/hearing in place % of households/ respondents 16 12 60 (dalits) who have participated in the 50 (women) public audit/hearing No. of VDC with feedback and 10 (23) 24 complaints mechanism in place Exchange implementation N/A experiences and establish relationship with MOF GRB unit to fine tune the GRB and DAG inclusion model R3 CSOs in the two target # of CSOs in target districts 0 10 districts are engaged in have increased understanding monitoring the local of GRB and gender budget governments’ budget auditing. allocation and expenditure. # of mock citizen budgets 0 2 per district. compiled and compared to actual VDC budgets. No. of VDC who have 0 12 conducted gender audits ER4 Evidence from district level CSO coalitions from two (mock citizen budget; gap target districts and national review; gender budget audit) is level are advocating for shared with national level gender responsive and stakeholders (MOFALD, MOF, DAG inclusive budgets at NPS, MWCSW, UN, INGOs, national level CSOs) CSOs at district level have At least 2 prioritized issues for advocacy meetings per and led targeted advocacy year initiatives.
Page | 51 Annex - 2. Population Details of project implementation VDCs
District VDC Population Female Male No. of HHs Dalits Janajati Gothiwang 6833 3409 3424 1103 2421 2239 Bangemarod 4659 2669 1990 1016 650 720 Sari 4977 2443 2534 421 771 1347 Ligha 3545 1899 1646 588 343 2528 Syauliwang 3310 1737 1573 635 6971 2280 Barjiwang 3571 1790 1781 575 330 784 Pyuthan Maghkot 3900 1950 1950 710 1000 2000 Bijuwar 7371 3733 3638 1388 2650 1578 Damri 5332 2617 2715 788 1547 2028 Khalanga 6842 3338 3504 1225 1633 2390 Khaira 5351 2713 2638 798 1080 1937 Tiram 5907 3290 2617 1122 779 4124 Ghatgaun 5289 2780 2509 1020 2201 340 Agarigaun 2908 1437 1471 472 675 163 Tatopani 4990 2565 2425 1026 2435 300 Mudu 8000 4080 3920 1500 . . Bidhhyapur 8500 4300 4200 1330 1593 1884 Chhapre 3448 1651 1797 4000 503 452 Surkhet Hariharpur 5405 2644 2761 1170 1276 1416 Taranga 5656 2644 3012 1170 1276 3000 Bajaura 6255 3191 3064 1031 1980 1250 Bajedichaur 3950 2015 1935 790 1200 125 Uttarganga 17261 8927 8334 4081 3280 3830 Satakhani 10037 4879 5158 1902 917 2445 143297 72701 70596 29861 37511 39160 Source: based on data provided by VDC.
Page | 52 Annex - 3. Two Representative Cases (of women who have participated in few activities)
Case Study 1
Sarita Dhakal (name changed) lives in Bangemarathe VDC, Pyuthan. Her children go to a school in a nearby village. The health facility is a little bit far from her house but she goes to take services quite often.
She has been living in the neighborhood for a long time. She goes to her VDC office for services like birth registration, marriage registration and recommendation letters. She hasn’t however any knowledge of and information regarding agriculture services in her VDC. She became informed about local service providers after being a member of ‘Ullyuni citizen awareness center’. She generally likes the attitude of her local service providers and is quite satisfied. She expressed “while doing birth registration and citizenship work, the staffs do (their work) nicely and in time, thus the attitude is very nice.”
She is also often called in VDC Council and ward assembly. She has participated in the assembly and discussed about VDC plans and budget distribution issues. She feels that nowadays the voice of dalit especially from women has been discussed in the meeting and women are encouraged to participate in planning and development of their VDC. However, she remarked that the opportunities are not fully utilized as women and dalit do not have specific skills and ability to perform such tasks. She seems quite satisfied about budget making process of VDC since budget is allocated according to its activities. She remarked that VDC has practice of providing assistance upon demand by community and also provides allowances to indigenous group and other people in the community. She is aware that VDC provides assistance on making participation of women in decision process but does not know how exactly it helps in the process. She has heard about Ward Citizen Forum but she is still unclear about the function of ward citizen forum. She thinks it works for the rights of the women and is thus satisfied with the work done by them.
She believes she has benefited vastly by becoming a member of a group. Earlier, she was shy to speak in front of mass forum, which now has been reduced and she actively participates in meetings and discussions. Now she knows how to deal with situation and talk accordingly in various places. She has also developed a habit of income saving after joining the group.
Case Study 2
Sumitra Khatri is the only one in her family who frequetnly goes to VDC office. She recently used VDC service for birth registration of her son which was completed rapidly and she received the birth registration certificate. All staffs of VDC are friendly and they ask her if any work to be done upon arriving in the office. In her experience, the service providers fulfill their responsibilities well.
Her experience of taking services from VDC is satisfactory as she says it has benefited all people. Her children are getting education which she also considers one of the important services. In her view, the quality of services in general is good however she disapproves of the fact that she has to pay enrollment fees to school. She is satisfied that her children pass exams each year.
She also participates in various meetings in VDC time to time where she gets occasional snacks and allowances. All women have common voice and raise issues in meeting thus in planning and budgeting process of VDC, the voice of all people especially of dalit and women are heard. She has been learning a lot of thing while she also gets information and chances to speak in the forum. She thinks it would be much better if all women had same skills.
She has knowledge that the VDC allocates budget for education, health and agriculture sector each year but she does not know the exact portion of the budget. Generally, she gets budget and planning information through participation in various meeting conducted by the VDC and from her neighbours. She
Page | 53 has mixed opinion about the budget allocation of VDC. She expressed that sometime she is satisfied that the budget allocation for women, children also reach to her area but some time she is not satisfied since it does not fully covers all the needs of the community.
Although she has been participating in various meeting and forum, she does not have clear understanding of ward citizen forum and citizen awareness center and their activities in her area. She demanded such forum should be made more public so that many people are aware about the function. She suggests that VDC should organize skill development and ability enhancement training to women of the village for sustainable development. She also hopes that VDC will call for participation in each meetings that benefit the community and provide with with logistic support such as registration, minute and stationery as necessary.
Page | 54 Annex - 4: Tools …;+sNkÚ kl/of]hgfsf] a];nfOg cWoog
1fg, l;k / cEof; ;DaGwL 3/w'/L ;j]{If0fsf nflu k|ZgfjnL -of] ;j]{If0f uf]nfk|yfjf6 5gf}6df k/]sf 3/w'/Lsf] ;j]{If0fsf nflu k|of]u ul/g'kb{5 . o; k|ZgfjnLnfO{ 3/d"nL jf !* jif{ eGbf dflysf 3/sf ;b:ox?;Fusf] ;j]{If0fsf nflu k|of]u ul/g'kb{5 . _
lhNnf sf]8 ;'k/efOh/ sf]8 ;j]{Ifs sf]8 k|sf/ qmd ;+Vof ldltM ======- lbg÷dlxgf÷;fn_ s_ k|d'v ;fdflhs cfly{s hfgsf/Lx?
1. lhNnf======uflj; M======j8f g+ M ======ufpF M ======6f]n M ======2. lnË -pQ/bftf_M k'?if dlxnf 3. s] tkfOF 3/d"nL klg xf] < xf] xf]Og #=! olb xf]Og eg], 3/d"nLsf] lnË s] xf] < k'?if dlxnf 4. wd{ M lxGb' af}4 O:nfd O;fO{ cGo 5. hfthfltM blnt hghflt cGo 6. kl/jf/sf] k|sf/ M Psn ;+o'Qm
7. kl/jf/sf ;b:osf] ;+Vof -Ps} 3/df a:g] / Ps} efG;fdf vfg]_M k'?if dlxnf
8. kl/jf/sf ;b:ox?sf] z}lIfs of]Uotfsf af/]df hfgsf/L lbg'xf]; . -tflnsfdf ;+Vof pNn]v ug'{xf];_
ljBfno c;fIf/ :ffdfGo k|fylds ljBfno lzIff pRr dfWolds pRr hfg] pd]/ ;fIf/ tx kf/ kf/ u/]sf] lzIff kf/ u/]sf] lzIff gePsf u/]sf] Dflxnf
k'?if
9. kl/jf/sf slt ;b:ox? cfo cfh{gdf ;+nUg 5g\ < slt hgf < k'?if dlxnf
Page | 55 10. tkfOFsf] kl/jf/sf] k|d'v tLg cfDbflgsf >f]tx? s] s] x'g<-klxnf]nfO{ !, bf];|f]nfO{ @ jf t];|f]nfO{ # n]Vg'xf];_ s[lif -v]tLkftL_ s[lif -kz'kfng_ u}/s[lif Jofkf/, Joj;fo / pwf]u dfl;s tna cfpg] hflu/ k]G;g b}lgs Hofnfbf/L a}b]lzs /f]huf/L jf cfo cGo M ======
11. tkfOFsf] kl/jf/sf] dfl;s cfDbflg cGbflh slt 5 < ? 12. s] tkfOFsf] kl/jf/sf] gfddf hUuf hldg 5 < 5 5}g !@=! olb 5 eg], s;sf] gfddf 5 < k'?if dlxnf b'a} 13. tkfOFsf] 3/df lgDg lnlvt j:t' jf ;]jfx? 5g\ ls 5}gg<-5g\ eg] , 5}gg\ eg] lrGx nufpg'xf];\ ._
6]lnlehg /]l8of] sDKo'6/ df]jfOn 5 jf 5}g k|of]udf 5 jf 5}g 14. tkfOFsf] 3/df vfg]kfgLsf] >f]t s] xf] < gLlh wf/f -kfOkjf6 NofOPsf]_ ;fd'bflos wf/f -kfOkjf6 NofOPsf]_ 5f]lkPsf] s'jf v'nfs'jf 6o'aj]njf Xof08 kDk d'nsf] kfgL vf]nf jf kf]v/L cGo M ======
15. s] 3/df 9flsPsf] -5f]lkPsf]_ zf}rfno 5 < 5 5}g v_ uflj;sf] of]hgf lgdf{0f tyf ah]6 ljlgof]hg
16. s]] tkfOFnfO{ uflj;n] ah]6 afF8kmfF8 s;/L u5{ eGg] ljifodf hfgsf/L 5 < 5 5}g 17. s] uflj;n] ah]6 afF8kmfF8 ug]{ a}7sdf tkfOFn] slxNo} efu lng'ePsf] 5 < 5 5}g olb 5}geg], k|Zg g+ @) df hfg'xf];\ . 18. s] o:tf] a}7sdf tkfOFn] cfkm\gf s'/f /fVg'ePsf] 5 < 5 5}g 19. s] ;f] a}7sdf tkfOFn] eg]sf] s'/fsf] ;Daf]wg gePsf] h:tf] nfU5 < nfU5 nfUb}g 20. s] tkfOFsf] kl/jf/sf] s;}n] uflj;sf] ah]6 afF8kmfF8 a}7sdf efu lng'ePsf] 5 < 5 5}g
Page | 56 @)=! olb 5 eg] s;n] < k'?if dlxnf b'a} 21. s] tkfOFnfO{ uflj;n] s'g zLif{sdf slt ah]6 5'6\ofPsf] 5 eGg] yfxf 5 < yfxf 5 yfxf 5}g @!=! olbyfxf 5 eg], uflj;sf] /sd AffF8kmfF8af6 tkfOF slQsf] ;Gt'i6 x'g'x'G5 < w]/} c;Gt'i6 c;Gt'i6 t6:y ;Gt'i6 w]/} ;Gt'i6 @!=@ yfxf 5}g eg], s] tkfOF uflj;sf] ah]6 afF8kmfF8sf af/]df hfGg OR5's x'g'x'G5 < 5' 5}g 22. s] tkfOFnfO{ dlxnf, afnaflnsf tyf lk5l8Psf] ju{sf] xslxtsfnflu uflj;n] ah]6 5'6\ofPsf] x'G5 eGg] yfxf 5 < yfxf 5 yfxf 5}g
23. olb yfxf 5 eg], dlxnfsfnflu slt k|ltzt /sd 5'§fPsf] x'G5 < /sd yfxf 5}g 24. s] tkfOFsf] ;d'bfon] dfu u/]sf sfo{s|dx?sf nflu uflj;n] /sd ljlgof]hg ug]{ u5{ < u5{ ub}{g yfxf 5}g 25. tkfOFnfO{ uflj;sf lgDg k|ls|of tyf ;+/rgfaf/]df slQsf] hfgsf/L 5 <-! b]lv % sf] /]l6Ë :s]ndf 5fGg'xf]; . w]/} hfgsf/L eP %, sd hfgsf/L eP ! cyjf ;f]lx cg';f/ nufpg'xf]; ._
k|ls|of tyf ;+/rgf Hffgsf/L ! @ # $ % 5}g ufpF kl/ifb a}7s ÷ah]6 afF8kmFf8 ah]6 vr{ k|ls|of Gfful/s ;r]tgf s]Gb| j8f gful/s d~r ;fdflhs k/LIf0f÷;fj{hlgs ;'g'jfO
26. tkfOFn] cfkm\gf] uflj;df cfpg] ljsf; lgdf{0fsf] ah]6sf ljifodf hfGg rfx]df s;/L yfxf kfpg'x'G5 <-Ps eGbf a9L 5fGg kfOg]+_ :yfgLo u}/;/sf/L ;+:yfaf6 :yfgLo ;~rf/ dfWodaf6 cfkm' ;b:oePsf] ;d'x jf ;ldltaf6 ;d'bfodfcfwfl/t cGo ;+:yfaf6 l5d]sLaf6 uflj; ;lrj tyf cGo kbflwsf/Laf6
Page | 57 kf]i6/,kDkn]6 cflb jf6 cGo -v'nfpg'xf];\ ======_ 27. s] tkfOFnfO{ gful/s a8fkq eg]sf] s] xf] yfxf 5 < 5 5}g olb 5}g eg] k|=g+ @* df hfg'xf]; @&=! olb 5 eg], ufpFsf ;j} ;]jf k|bfos sfof{nodf of] /flvPsf] 5 < ;a}df 5 ;a}df 5}g s'g} s'g} sfof{nodf 5 . u= :yfgLo:t/df ;d'bfosf] ;xeflutf
28. tkfOFsf] ljrf/df :yfgLo ;d'x jf ;ldltsf] ;b:o x'g' cfjZos 5 ls 5}g < 5 5}g 29. tkfOFsf] ljrf/df :yfgLo ;/sf/sf] ljleGg k|ls|of –h:t} of]hgf lgdf{0f, ah]6 afF8kmfF8df ;xefuL x'g' cfjZos 5 ls 5}g < 5 5}g
30. s] tkfOF jf tkfOFsf] kl/jf/sf] s'g} ;b:o @)&) df lgDg ;ef jf a}7sdf ;lDdlnt x'g'ePsf] lyof] <
;ef ;"rgf kfpg' ePsf] ;xeflu x'g' ePsf] Aff]Ng] lyof] < -kfPsf] eP / lyof]< -ePsf] eP/ df}sfkfpg'eof] < gkfPsf] eP gePsf] eP -kfPsf] eP/ nufpg'xf];_ nufpg'xf];_ gkfPsf] eP nufpg'xf];_ Ufflj;sf] ufpF ;ef –kl/ifb\ a}7s ;j{blno a}7s PsLs[t of]hgf th'{df ;ldltsf] a}7s a:tL e]nf -ufpF:t/df of]hgf th'{dfsf nflu_ j8f e]nf -ufpF:t/df of]hgf th'{dfsf nflu_ Ufflj;sf Kfl/of]hgfsf] ;fj{hlgs ;'g'jfO{
31. s] tkfOFnfO{ glhssf] ljBfnosf] cfDbflg / vr{sf] af/]df yfxf 5 < 5 5}g 32. s] tkfOFnfO{ :jf:Yo ;+:yfsf] cfDbflg / vr{sf] af/]df yfxf 5< 5 5}g
Page | 58 33. s] tkfOFn] oL ;F:yfx?df uP/ cfDbflg / vr{sf] af/]df a'em\g] k|of; ug'{ePsf] 5 < 5 5}g 34. s] tkfOF s'g} ;d'x cyjf ;ldltsf] ;b:o x'g'x'G5 < 5' 5}g olb 5}g eg] l;w} k|Zg g+ #$=$ df hfg'xf];\ #$=! olb x'g'x'G5 eg], tkfOF s'g ;d'xsf] ;b:o x'g'x'G5 <-Ps eGbf a9L 5fGg kfpg]_ uflj; ;j{bnLo ;ldlt ;fd'bflos jg ljBfno Joj:yfkg ;ldlt lzIfs cleefjs ;+3 :jf:Yo ;+:yf Joj:yfkg ;ldlt u}/;/sf/L ;+:yf art ;d'x÷dlxnf ;d'x cfdf ;d'x j8f gful/s d~r gful/s ;r]tgf s]Gb| PsLs[t of]hgf th'{df ;ldlt cGo M ======#$=@ s] tkfOF -tkfOFsf] kl/jf/sf sf]xL_ ;b:o ePsf] ;d'x cyjf ;ldltn] uflj;df uP/ s'g} sfo{s|dsf] dfu ug]{ u/]sf] 5 < 5 5}g #$=# s] tkfOFn] :yfgLo ;d'x jf ;ldltaf6 -h:t} Mj8f gful/s d~r, gful/s ;r]tgf s]Gb|_ :yfgLo zf;g / Joj:yfkgsf] jf/]df hfgsf/L lng'ePsf] 5 < 5 5}g #$=$ olb tkfOF ;b:o x'g'x'Gg eg], o; 3/sf cGo s'g} JolQm s'g} ;ldlt jf ;+:yfdf ;b:o 5g\ ls 5}gg < 5g\ 5}gg\ olb 5}gg\ eg] k|Zg g+ #^ df hfg'xf]; #$=% olb 5g\ eg], s'g ;d'xsf] ;b:o 5g\ < -Ps eGbf a9L 5fGg kfpg] _ uflj; ;j{bnLo ;ldlt ;fd'bflos jg ljBfno Joj:yfkg ;ldlt lzIfscleefjs ;+3 :jf:Yo ;+:yfJoj:yfkg ;ldlt u}/;/sf/L ;+:yf art ;d'x÷dlxnf ;d'x cfdf ;d'x j8f gful/s d~r gful/s ;r]tgf s]Gb| PsLs[t of]hgf th'{df ;ldlt cGo M ======35. s] tkfOFsf] kl/jf/sf] sf]xL ;b:o ;+:yfsf] cWoIf ag]sf 5g\ < 5g\ 5}gg\
3_hjfkmb]lxtf ;DaGwL hfgsf/Lx?
36. s] tkfOFsf] uflj;n] ;fdflhs k/LIf0f ug]{ u/]sf] yfxf 5 < yfxf 5 yfxf 5}g
Page | 59 olb yfxf 5}g eg], l;w} k|Zg g+ #* df hfg'xf];\ 37. s] cl3Nnf] jif{ tkfOFsf] uflj;n] ;fdflhs k/LIf0f u/]sf] lyof] < lyof] lyPg 38. s] tkfOF uflj;sf] ;fdflhs k/LIf0fdf ;xefuL x'g'ePsf] 5 < 5' 5}g #&=! olb 5 eg], s] tkfOFn] uflj;sf] ;fdflhs k/LIf0fdf s'g} k|Zg ;f]Wg' ePsf] 5 jf cfkm\gf s'/fx? /fVg'ePsf] 5 < 5 5}g 39. s] tkfOFsf] uflj;n] n}lËs ;dtf k/LIf0f -Gender Audit) ug]{ u/]sf] yfxf 5 < yfxf 5 yfxf 5}g olb yfxf 5}g eg], l;w} k|Zg g+ $! df hfg'xf];\ 40. yfxf 5 eg], s] tkfOFn] o:tf] n}lËs ;dtf k/LIf0fdf efu lng'ePsf] 5 < 5 5}g olb y5}g eg], k|Zg g+ $! df hfg'xf];\ $)=! olb 5 eg], s] tkfOFn] uflj;sf] n}lËs ;dtf k/LIf0fdf s'g} k|Zg ;f]Wg' ePsf] 5 jf cfkm\gf s'/fx? /fVg'ePsf] 5 < 5 5}g 41. s] tkfOFsf] uflj;n] ;fd'bflos c+s kf6L -Score Board) ;~rfng u/]sf] yfxf 5 < 5 5}g dnfO{ yfxf 5}g $!=! olb 5 eg], tkfOF ;fd'bflos c+s kf6Ldf ;xeflu x'g' ePsf] 5 < 5 5}g 42. s] tkfOFnfO{ ;'rgf;DaGwL xssf] af/]df yfxf 5 < yfxf 5 yfxf 5}g olb y5}g eg], k|Zg g+ $# df hfg'xf];\ $@=! olb yfxf 5 eg], ;"rgf ;DaGwL xssf] k|of]u u/]/ tkfOFn] uflj; jf cGo ;/sf/L ;+:yfaf6 s'g} ;"rgf dfUg' ePsf] 5 < 5 5}g 43. tkfOF uflj;df /x]sf ;]jfk|bfos ;+:yfn] k|bfg ug]{ ;]jfaf6 slQsf] ;Gt'i6 x'g'x'G5 < w]/} c;Gt'i6 c;Gt'i6 t6:y ;Gt'i6 w]/} ;Gt'i6
44. s] tkfOFnfO{ uflj;sf] ;]jfaf6 lrQ ga'em]df sxfF uP/ u'gf;f] ug]{ eGg] yfxf 5 < yfxf 5 yfxf 5}g
Page | 60 …;+sNkÚsfo{s|dsf] a];nfOg cWoog
Ufflj; tYofÍ ;Íng kmf/fd -of] kmf/fd sfo{s|d nfu' x'g] ;a} uflj;sf nflu eg'{kg]{5 . _ lhNnf M ======uflj;sf] gfd M======kmf]g g+M======ldltM======s= uflj;sf] ;fdfGo hfgsf/L hDdf hg;+Vof - 3/w'/L ;+Vof -cg'dflgt_ cg'dflgt_ Dflxnfsf] ;+Vof k'?ifsf] ;+Vof blntsf] ;+Vof hDdf hghfltsf] ;+Vof Ufflj;sf sd{rf/L ;+Vof o; uflj;sf nflu dfq 5'§} ;lra 5g\ ls 5}gg < v= ah]6 , of]hgf lgdf{0f / ;fd'bflos c+s kf6L
1. cf=a= @)^(÷@)&) df uflj;n] slt ah]6 ljlgof]hg u/]sf] lyof] < ? ======2. cf=a= @)^(÷@)&) df ljlgof]lht ah]6df slt vr{ ePsf] lyof] < ? ======3. cf=a= @)&)÷@)&!sf nflu slt ah]6 ljlgof]hg ul/Psf] 5 < ? ======4. s] uflj;n] ;/sf/af6 kfpg' kg]{ ah]6 ;dodf g} kfof] < kfof] kfPsf] 5}g zLif{s @)^(÷@)&) sf nflu slt hDdf ljlgof]hg ul/Psf] 5 ls 5}g /sd< ah]6sf] < k|ltzt dlxnfsf nflu ah]6 lk5l8Psf] ju{sf If]qdf ah]6 Afnaflnsfsfnflu ah]6 :jf:Yodf ah]6 lzIffdf ah]6
Page | 61 5. s] ufpF ljsf; ;ldltsf] cfjlws ljsf; of]hgf 5 < 5 5}g olb 5}g eg], l;w} k|Zg g+ ^ df hfg'xf]; %=! olb 5 eg], of]hgfsf] calw xfn ;Dd sfod 5 ls 5}g < 5 5}g %=@ olb 5 eg], s] cfjlws of]hgfdf lgDg ljifox? ;dfj]z ul/Psf] 5 < n}lËs ;dtf ;fdflhs ;dflxttf 5 -_ jf 5}g -_
6. uflj;sf] PsLs[t of]hgf th'{df ;ldltdf slthgf dlxnf /x]sf 5g\ < 7. s] uflj;df uflj;:t/Lo afn Sna jf afn ;+/If0f ;ldlt 5 < 5 5}g
8. s] uflj;sf] ufpF kl/ifbdf dlxnf / lk5l8Psf] ju{nfO{ klg ;dfj]z ug]{ ul/G5 < 5 5}g
9. cl3Nnf] ufpF kl/ifbdf slt hgfsf] ;xeflutf ePsf] lyof] < hgf
ufpF kl/ifbdf ;xeflutf eof] -_÷ ePg - ;xeflu ;+Vof _ dlxnfsf] ;xeflutf blntsf] ;xeflutf :yfgLo lk5l8Psf ju{ Affnaflnsfsf] ;xeflutf Gfful/s ;r]tgf s]Gb|sf ;b:o :yfgLo u};;+ / ;d'bfodf cfwfl/t ;+:yf
10. s] uflj;n] ;xeflutfd'ns of]hgf lgdf{0fsf !$ r/0fsf] cEof; ug]{ u/]sf] 5 < 5 5}g 11. s] ufpF ljsf; ;ldltsf] sfof{nodf gful/s j8fkq 6fFluPsf] 5 < 5 5}g u= ;d'bfodf cfwfl/t ;+:yfx?
12. Ufflj;df lgDg lnlvt ;+:yfsf] pknAwtfsf af/]df hfgsf/L lbg'xf];\ . ;d'bfodf cfwfl/t ;+:yfx? 5 -_÷5}g -_ 5 eg] hDdf ;+Vof slt 5 < j8f gful/s d~r dlxnf lgu/fgL ;d"x
Page | 62 afn ;+/If0f ;ldlt dlxnf clwsf/ d~r÷;~hfn gful/s ;r]tgf s]Gb|
13. s] ;d'bfodf cfwfl/t ;+:yf jf u}/;/sf/L ;+:yfn] uflj;n] of]hgf lgdf{0fsf !$ r/0fsf] cEof; u/] gu/]sf] cg'udg ug]{ u/]sf 5g\ < 5g\ 5}gg\
3= cg'udg / d"NofÍg ;DqGwL hfgsf/L
14. s] uflj;df Joj:yfkg ;"rgf k|0ffnL (MIS) pknAw 5 < 5 5}g
15. s] uflj;n] cl3Nnf] jif{sf] jflif{s n]vfk/LIf0f k|ltj]bg k/Lifb / gful/s;fd' ;fj{hlgs u/]sf] 5 < 5 5}g olb 5}g eg], !#=@ df hfg'xf];\ !%=! olb 5 eg], ;xeflutf s:tf] lyof] < Dflxnfsf] ;+Vof blntsf] ;+Vof afnaflnsfsf] ;+Vof
!%=@ olb u/]sf] 5}g eg], s] cl3Nnf jif{x?df ul/Psf] lyof] < lyof] lyPg 16. s] uflj;df @ nfv eGbf dflysf kl/of]hgfsf cg'udg ;ldlt u7g ul/Psf] 5 < 5 5}gg 5 eg], k|Zg !% / !%=! df hfg'xf]; . 17. s] uflj;sf @ nfv eGbf dflysf kl/of]hgfsf ;fj{hlgs ;'g'jfO{ ul/G5 < ul/G5 ul/Fb}g !%=! olb ul/G5 eg], cl3Nnf] jif{ @ nfv eGbf tL dWo] sltj6f tL dWo] sltj6f kl/of]hgfsf] a9Lsf sltj6f kl/of]hgf kl/of]hgfsf cg'udg ;fj{hlgs ;'g'jfO{ ul/Psf] 5 < lyP < ;ldlt 5g\ <
18. s] cl3Nnf] jif{ uflj;sf] ah]6sf] n}lËs ;dtf k/LIf0f (Gender Audit) ul/Psf] 5 < 5 5}g 19. s] uflj;n] ;fd'bflos c+s kf6L ;~rfng ug]{ u/]sf] 5 < 5 5}g !*=! olb ul/G5 eg], s] o;sf] cEof; ubf{ dlxnf tyf lk5l8Psf] ju{nfO{ ;dfj]z ul/G5 <
Page | 63 !*= s] uflj;df u'gf;f] tyf k[i7kf]if0f ug]{ ;+oGq 5 < 5 5}g
ª= uflj;sf] Go"gtd ;t{ sfo{;Skfbg ;DaGwL hfgsf/L
@$= ut cfly{s jif{df uflj;n] Go'gtd zt{ -MC_ ;'rsdf slt c+s xfl;n u/]sf] lyof] hfgsf/L lbg'xf];\ . qm Jflif{s jh]6 tyf sfo{qmd :jLs[ltsf] cj:yf 5 5}g =;+ = 1. Rffn" cfjsf] ah]6 tyf sfo{s|d ut cfjsf] kf}if d;fGt leq ufpF kl/ifbaf6 :jLs[t u/]sf] 2. :jLs[t ufpF ljsf; sfo{qmdsf] ljj/0f df3 d;fGt leq lhNnf ljsf; ;ldltdf k7fPsf] 3. ut eGbf cl3Nnf] cf=j= df ufpF ljsf; ;ldltåf/f ;+rflnt cfof]hgf tyf sfo{qmdsf] jflif{s k|ult ;dLIff ut cf=j= sf] klxnf] rf}dfl;s cjlw leq ;DkGg u/]sf] 4. ;dLIffsf] pkl:ylt ;lxtsf] lg0f{o k':tLsf tof/ u/]sf] 5. ;dLIff ePsf] ldltn] Ps dlxgf leq ;f] sf] k|ltj]bg ;lxtsf] hfgsf/L ;DalGwt lhNnf ljsf; ;ldltsf] sfof{nodf k7fPsf] 6. ;"rLs[t n]vfk/LIfs dWo]af6 n]vfk/LIf0f u/fpgsf] nflu n]vfk/LIfssf] gfd :jLs[tLsf nflu l;kmfl/z u/L ut cf=j sf] klxnf] rf}dfl;s leq lhNnf ljsf; ;ldltdf k7fPsf] 7. ut cf=j= eGbf cl3Nnf] cf=j= sf]] ;Dk"0f{ cfDbfgL–vr{sf] clGtd n]vfk/LIf0f lhNnf ljsf; ;ldltaf6 v6fPsf] n]vf k/LIfsaf6 ut cf j leq} ;DkGg u/fPsf] 8. n]vfk/LIf0fsf] k|ltj]bg ufpF kl/ifb\df k]z e} 5nkmn ePsf] 9. vr{ eP/ hfg] ;j} lhG;L dfn;fdfgsf] nut :yfgLo lgsfo cfly{s k|zf;g lgodfjnLsf] cg';"rL %) adf]lhdsf] vftfdf /fv]sf] 10. vKg] ;j} lhG;L dfn;fdfgsf] nut :yfgLo lgsfo cfly{s k|zf;g lgodfjnLsf] cg';"rL %! adf]lhdsf] vftfdf /fv]sf] 11. cfkm\gf] xs ef]usf] ;Dk'0f{ crn ;DkQLsf] clen]v /fv]sf] 12. Rffn" cf=j=df ;fdflhs ;'/Iff eQf kfpg] JolQmx?sf] ljj/0f cBfjlws u/L ut cf=j=sf] kf}if d;fGt leq lhNnf ljsf; ;ldltdf k7fPsf] 13. ut cf=j= df eQf k|fKt u/]sf JolQmx?sf] kmf]6f] ;lxtsf] clen]v
Page | 64 k|dfl0ft u/L /fv]sf] 14. ;fdflhs ;'/Iff eQf ljt/0fsf] nflu lhNnf ljsf; ;ldltaf6 k]ZsL k|fKt u/]sf] ldltn] #% lbg leq k]ZsL km5\of}{6 u/]sf] . 15. P]gsf] bkmf @$( adf]lhdsf] k|lqmof k"/f u/L kl/ifbaf6 b/aGbL :jLs[t ePsf] 16. :jLs[t b/aGbLdf lgo'lQm ubf{ k|zf;lgs vr{sf] l;df ggf3\g] u/L kbk'lt{ ;ldltsf] l;kmfl/;df lgo'lQm u/]sf] 17. { nf]s ;]jf cfof]usf] k|ltlglw ;lxtsf] pkl:yltdf kbk"lt{ ;DaGwL lg0f{o u/]sf] 18. :jLs[t :yfoL b/aGbL eGbf al9 sd{rf/L lg'o'lQm gu/]sf] 19. :jLs[t :yfoL b/aGbLdf c:yfoL lg'o'lQm gu/]sf] ;+sNk kl/of]hgfsf] a];nfO{g cWoog
Gfful/s ;r]tgf s]Gb| hfgsf/L ;+sng kmf/fd ldlt M======lhNnf M ======uflj;sf] gfd M ======j8f g+ M ======;r]tgf s]Gb|sf] gfd M ======6f]n M ======;Dks{ JolQmM======kb M ======kmf]g M======s= ;fdfGohfgsf/L
1. :yfkgf ldlt M======2. s] ;r]tgf s]Gb|sf ;xhstf{ :yfgLo x'g\ < x'g xf]Og 3. ;xhstf{ dlxnf x'g ls k'?if < dlxnf k'?if 4. s] ;r]tgf s]Gb| s'g} ljz]if ;d'xsf nflu agfOPsf] xf] < xf] xf]Og olb xf] eg] s;sf nflu <-Ps eGbf al9 5fGg kfOg]_M blnt :yfgLo lk5l8Psf] ;d'x cfly{s?kn] ljkGg cGo M ======
5. ;r]tgf s]Gb|sf ;b:o ;+Vof ;DaGwL hfgsf/L
Page | 65 hDdf ;b:osf] Dflxnf ;b:osf] ;+Vof ;+Vof blnt ;b:osf] ;+Vof hghflt ;b:osf] ;+Vof 6. ;r]tgf s]Gb|sf] a}7s slxn] slxn] a:g] u5{ < xKtfdf Ps k6s kGw| lbgdf Psk6s dlxgfdf Ps k6s tLg dlxgfdf Ps k6s 5 dlxgfdf Ps k6s jif{df Ps k6s cGo -v'nfpg'xf];\_
7. ;fwf/0ftof a}7ssf] ;do slt ah] ul/G5 < ah] 8. ;r]]tgf s]Gb|sf] kl5Nnf] a}7s slxn] a;]sf] lyof] <- ldlt======lbg ÷dlxgf ÷jif{_
9. kl5Nnf] a}7sdf slt hgfsf] ;xeflutf ePsf] lyof] < hgf tLdWo] slthgf dlxnf ;xeflu x'g'x'GYof] < hgf tLdWo] slthgf blnt ;xeflu x'g'x'GYof] < hgf tLdWo] slthgf hghflt ;xeflu x'g'x'GYof] < hgf
10. s] ;r]tgf s]Gb|df cfo cfh{g / lhljsf]kfh{gsf pkfox? ;DaGwL 5nkmn ul/G5 <ul/G5 ul/Fb}g 11. s] o; ;r]tgf s]Gb|nfO{{ ufpF kl/ifbdf ;xeflutfsf nflu af]nfOG5 < 5 5}g !!=! olb 5 eg], uPsf] ufpF kl/ifbdf slthgf ;xefuL x'g'eof] < hgf 12. s] ;r]tgf s]Gb|sf k|ltlglwnfO{ Plss[t of]hgf th'{df ;ldltdf ;xeflu u/fOPsf] 5 < 5 5}g !@=! olb 5 eg], slt hgf < hgf
13. s] ;r]tgf s]Gb|sf ;b:ox? :yfgLo ;fj{hlgs ;'g'jfO{df ;xeflu ePsf lyP < lyP lyPgg !#=! olb lyP eg], slt hgf < hgf
Page | 66 Annex 5. District Wise Outcome Table
Preferred and usual information source Local Local Local Neighb VDC Posters/Pa District NGO Media group CBO ors Secretary mphlets Others Surkhet 2.5% 5.3% 8.8% 4.2% 78.8% 40.3% 1.4% .6% Pyuthan .5% 18.5% 18.8% 1.9% 69.6% 27.2% .4% 6.6% Total 21 175 201 43 1064 481 13 53 Percentages and totals are based on respondents. a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.
Do you have information about how VDC allocates it's budget? Do you have information about how VDC allocates it's budget? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 14.2% 85.8% 100.0% Surkhet 23.7% 76.3% 100.0% Aggregate 19.0% 81.0% 100.0%
Have you ever taken part in a meeting where VDC allocates its budget? Have you ever taken part in a meeting where VDC allocates its budget? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 11.8% 88.2% 100.0% Surkhet 10.9% 89.1% 100.0% Aggregate 11.3% 88.7% 100.0%
Have you expressed your opinion in such meeting? Have you expressed your opinion in such meeting? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 73.6% 26.4% 100.0% Surkhet 93.2% 6.8% 100.0% Aggregate 82.5% 17.5% 100.0%
Do you think your concern was not addressed by the meeting? Do you think your concern was not addressed by the meeting? Total Yes No Pyuthan 46.3% 53.7% 100.0% Surkhet 39.4% 60.6% 100.0% Aggregte 42.8% 57.2% 100.0%
Have any of your family member attended in the VDC budget allocation meetings? Have any of your family member attended in the VDC budget allocation meetings? Total Yes No Pyuthan 10.8% 89.2% 100.0% Surkhet 10.8% 89.2% 100.0% Aggregate 10.8% 89.2% 100.0%
Page | 67 If yes, who participated in such meeting? If yes, who participated in such meeting? Total Male Female Both Pyuthan 76.9% 16.7% 6.4% 100.0% Surkhet 69.7% 23.7% 6.6% 100.0% Aggregate 73.4% 20.1% 6.5% 100.0%
Are you aware about VDC budget distributed by heading? Are you aware about VDC budget distributed by heading? Total Yes No Pyuthan 7.5% 92.5% 100.0% Surkhet 14.1% 85.9% 100.0% Aggregate 10.8% 89.2% 100.0%
If Yes, how satisfied you are? Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Total Pyuthan 2.0% 2.0% 7.8% 88.2% 100.0% Surkhet 1.0% 26.2% 21.4% 51.5% 100.0% Aggregate 1.3% 18.2% 16.9% 63.6% 100.0%
If No, do you wish to know about such budget division? If No, do you wish to know about such budget division? Total Yes No Pyuthan 91.5% 8.5% 100.0% Surkhet 94.9% 5.1% 100.0% Aggregate 93.1% 6.9% 100.0%
Are you aware that VDC allocates separate budget for women, children, and DAG? Are you aware that VDC allocates separate budget for women, children, and DAG? Total Yes No Pyuthan 21.5% 78.5% 100.0% Surkhet 22.4% 77.6% 100.0% Aggregate 21.9% 78.1% 100.0%
If aware, do you know what is the exact amount? If aware, do you know what is the exact amount? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 23.4% 76.6% 100.0% Surkhet 42.4% 57.6% 100.0% Aggregate 31.3% 68.8% 100.0%
Is the VDC allocation in line with community demand? Is the VDC allocation in line with community demand? Total Yes No Don't know Yes Pyuthan 31.4% 4.2% 64.4% 100.0% Surkhet 35.9% 9.7% 54.4% 100.0% Aggregate 33.6% 6.9% 59.5% 100.0%
Page | 68 Are you aware about citizen charter? Are you aware about citizen charter? Total Yes No Pyuthan 11.0% 89.0% 100.0% Surkhet 20.7% 79.3% 100.0% Aggregate 15.8% 84.2% 100.0%
Is citizen charter placed in all service points? Is citizen charter placed in all service points? Total Yes, in all Not, in all In some offices Yes, in all Pyuthan 32.5% 13.0% 54.5% 100.0% Surkhet 24.2% 19.2% 56.7% 100.0% Aggregate 27.4% 16.8% 55.8% 100.0%
Level of Information (Rating in the scale of 1-5) Rating on Rating on Rating on information information information about Rating on Rating on about social District about village budget expenditure information information audit/public Name assembly procedure about CAC about WCF hearing Pyuthan Mean .64 .40 .48 .88 .46 N 766 766 765 766 765 Std. 1.230 1.022 1.168 1.410 1.156 Deviation Surkhet Mean .61 .37 .62 .76 .51 N 766 769 767 766 767 Std. 1.231 1.035 1.346 1.427 1.195 Deviation Total Mean .62 .39 .55 .82 .49 N 1532 1535 1532 1532 1532 Std. 1.230 1.028 1.262 1.419 1.175 Deviation
Are you member of any group or committee? Are you member of any group or committee? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 59.8% 40.2% 100.0% Surkhet 58.0% 42.0% 100.0% Aggregate 58.9% 41.1% 100.0%
Membership by groups/committees CFU HFOM Saving Mothers Othe MPC G SMC PTA C NGO Group Group WCF CAC IPC rs Surkhet 18.2 13.2 5.5 15.3 13.4 15.8 2.4 12.4 2.9% .7% 50.0% 34.0% % % % % % % % % Pyuthan 13.3 1.8 10.6 1.4 65.3 2.3% 6.0% .9% 3.9% 22.3% 30.6% 7.8% % % % % % Count 22 134 81 31 7 81 306 275 90 112 16 336 Percentages and totals are based on respondents. a Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.
Page | 69 Do you think it is necessary to be a member of local group/committee? Do you think it is necessary to be a member of local group/committee? Total Yes No Pyuthan 84.7% 15.3% 100.0% Surkhet 90.1% 9.9% 100.0% Aggregate 87.4% 12.6% 100.0%
Do you think it is necessary to take part in local government procedures? Do you think it is necessary to take part in local government procedures? Total Yes No Pyuthan 82.3% 17.7% 100.0% Surkhet 91.5% 8.5% 100.0% Aggregate 86.9% 13.1% 100.0%
Were you or any family member informed about village assembly? Were you or any family member informed about village assembly? Total No Yes No Pyuthan 84.3% 15.7% 100.0% Surkhet 74.2% 25.8% 100.0% Aggregate 79.2% 20.8% 100.0%
Did you or family member take part in village assembly? Did you or family member take part in village assembly? Total No Yes Pyuthan 80.2% 19.8% 100.0% Surkhet 80.6% 19.4% 100.0% Aggregate 80.4% 19.6% 100.0%
Did you or family member speak in village assembly? Did you or family member speak in village assembly? Total No Yes Pyuthan 71.5% 28.5% 100.0% Surkhet 88.3% 11.7% 100.0% Aggregate 84.0% 16.0% 100.0%
Were you or any family member informed about integrated planning committee?
Were you or any family member informed about integrated planning committee? Total No Yes Pyuthan 90.4% 9.6% 100.0% Surkhet 87.4% 12.6% 100.0% Aggregate 88.9% 11.1% 100.0%
Page | 70 Did you or family member take part in integrated planning committee? Did you or family member take part in integrated planning committee? Total No Yes Pyuthan 41.3% 58.7% 100.0% Surkhet 25.3% 74.7% 100.0% Aggregate 32.2% 67.8% 100.0%
Did you or family member speak in integrated planning committee? Did you or family member speak in integrated planning committee? Total No Yes Pyuthan 19.0% 81.0% 100.0% Surkhet 39.2% 60.8% 100.0% Aggregate 31.9% 68.1% 100.0%
Were you or any family member informed about basti meeting? Were you or any family member informed about basti meeting? Total No Yes Pyuthan 45.4% 54.6% 100.0% Surkhet 59.5% 40.5% 100.0% Aggregate 52.5% 47.5% 100.0%
Did you or family member take part in basti meeting? Did you or family member take part in basti meeting? Total No Yes Pyuthan 20.5% 79.5% 100.0% Surkhet 10.6% 89.4% 100.0% Aggregate 16.3% 83.7% 100.0%
Did you or family member speak in basti meeting? Did you or family member speak in basti meeting? Total No Yes Pyuthan 27.4% 72.6% 100.0% Surkhet 37.4% 62.6% 100.0% Aggregate 32.2% 67.8% 100.0%
Were you or any family member informed about ward meeting? Were you or any family member informed about ward meeting? Total No Yes Pyuthan 51.2% 48.8% 100.0% Surkhet 49.0% 51.0% 100.0% Aggregate 50.1% 49.9% 100.0%
Page | 71 Did you or family member take part in ward meeting? Did you or family member take part in ward meeting? Total No Yes No Pyuthan 30.8% 69.2% 100.0% Surkhet 10.7% 89.3% 100.0% Aggregate 20.4% 79.6% 100.0%
Did you or family member speak in ward meeting? Did you or family member speak in ward meeting? Total No Yes No Pyuthan 23.8% 76.2% 100.0% Surkhet 38.1% 61.9% 100.0% Aggregate 32.4% 67.6% 100.0%
Were you or any family member informed about public hearing? Were you or any family member informed about public hearing? Total No Yes No Pyuthan 87.1% 12.9% 100.0% Surkhet 76.3% 23.7% 100.0% Aggregate 81.6% 18.4% 100.0%
Did you or family member take part in public hearing? Did you or family member take part in public hearing? Total No Yes No Pyuthan 37.5% 62.5% 100.0% Surkhet 25.8% 74.2% 100.0% Aggregate 29.9% 70.1% 100.0%
Did you or family member speak in ward public hearing? Crosstabulation
Did you or family member speak in ward public hearing? Total No Yes No Pyuthan 17.5% 82.5% 100.0% Surkhet 53.4% 46.6% 100.0% Aggregate 42.6% 57.4% 100.0%
Are you aware about income and expenditure of nearest school? Are you aware about income and expenditure of nearest school? Total Yes No Pyuthan 7.6% 92.4% 100.0% Surkhet 17.1% 82.9% 100.0% Aggregate 12.4% 87.6% 100.0%
Page | 72 Is there anyone from your family who is chair of any group/committee?
Is there anyone from your family who is chair of any group/committee? Total Yes No Pyuthan 8.9% 91.1% 100.0% Surkhet 11.0% 89.0% 100.0% Aggregate 10.1% 89.9% 100.0%
Do you know about VDC conducting social audit? Do you know about VDC conducting social audit? Total Yes No Pyuthan 8.7% 91.3% 100.0% Surkhet 10.3% 89.7% 100.0% Aggregate 9.5% 90.5% 100.0%
If yes, did VDC conduct social audit last year? If yes, did VDC conduct social audit last year? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 71.0% 29.0% 100.0% Surkhet 77.6% 22.4% 100.0% Aggregate 74.6% 25.4% 100.0%
Have you participated in social audit? Have you anticipated in social audit? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 41.7% 58.3% 100.0% Surkhet 49.3% 50.7% 100.0% Aggregate 45.9% 54.1% 100.0%
If Yes, did you ask any question during social audit? If Yes, did you ask any question during social audit? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 87.0% 13.0% 100.0% Surkhet 75.8% 24.2% 100.0% Aggregate 80.4% 19.6% 100.0%
Have you heard about VDC conducting gender audit? Have you heard about VDC conducting gender audit? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 2.6% 97.4% 100.0% Surkhet 4.6% 95.4% 100.0% Aggregate 3.6% 96.4% 100.0%
Page | 73 If yes, have you taken part in the gender audit? If yes, have you taken part in the gender audit? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 35.0% 65.0% 100.0% Surkhet 46.9% 53.1% 100.0% Aggregate 42.3% 57.7% 100.0%
If yes, have you asked questions during such gender audit? If yes, have you asked questions Total during such gender audit? Yes No Yes Pyuthan 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% Surkhet 73.3% 26.7% 100.0% Aggregate 72.7% 27.3% 100.0%
Are you aware about Right to Information? Are you aware about Right to Information? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 14.5% 85.5% 100.0% Surkhet 14.5% 85.5% 100.0% Aggregate 14.5% 85.5% 100.0%
If Yes, have you demanded information following RTI? If Yes, have you demanded information following RTI? Total Yes No Yes Pyuthan 42.7% 57.3% 100.0% Surkhet 55.9% 44.1% 100.0% Aggregate 49.7% 50.3% 100.0%
How satisfied you are with service providers in VDC? How satisfied you are with service providers in VDC? Total Very dissatisfied Satisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied Pyuthan 1.3% 6.8% 14.5% 76.9% .5% 100.0% Surkhet 1.7% 17.3% 33.9% 46.4% .6% 100.0% Aggregate 1.5% 12.1% 24.3% 61.6% .6% 100.0%
Do you know where you can raise your concern if you are not satisfied with the services? Do you know where you can raise your concern if you are not satisfied with the services? Total Yes No Pyuthan 20.7% 79.3% 100.0% Surkhet 19.1% 80.9% 100.0% Aggregate 19.9% 80.1% 100.0%
Page | 74